On 28 February 2002, Senators Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) and Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) unveiled the FBI Reform Act of 2002, which would, among other things, expand polygraph screening of current FBI employees.

An Associated Press article by Jesse J. Holland on the bill is available on the Washington Post website under the title, "Senators Call for FBI Oversight Legislation."

A section-by-section analysis of the FBI Reform Act of 2002 is available on Senatator Leahy's website. The relevant portion states:

Quote:


In addition, Senator Leahy's remarks on the introduction of the bill are also available on his website. The relevant portion states: "We improve security both inside and outside the FBI...by establishing a polygraph program to increase security at the same time as protecting employee rights..."

Fightback,

In the current political climate, I think that this bill is likely to receive wide bipartisan support and to be passed by Congress and signed by the President with little public debate (and with the polygraph provisions of Title IV intact). Despite this likelihood, I think it is important that we do what we can to attempt to avert this mistake by calling and/or writing to our elected representatives. Even if the legislation cannot be entirely thwarted, it might be possible to get portions amended. For example, the Senate might be amenable to adding a requirement that all polygraph interrogations conducted under this Act be videotaped, which would add an important protection for FBI employees.

One thing I find disturbing is the clause in Section 402 that mandates that "the program shall be established within 6 months of the publication of the results of the report of the Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph of the National Academy of Sciences." What if the NAS report agrees with the consensus of the scientific community that polygraph screening is completely invalid and should be stopped? Do Senators Leahy and Grassley have some foreknowledge that the NAS is going to bow to political pressure and endorse continued polygraph screening? I don't know, but it's an interesting question. If the NAS recommends against polygraph screening, then the authors of the FBI Reform Act of 2002 will be publicly embarrassed.

Which leads to another concern: with the chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the record as supporting polygraph screening, it seems unlikely that the committee will support a Comprehensive Polygraph Protection Act (essentially the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act with the governmental and other exemptions removed) any time soon.

And while the bill purports to address false positive results, I see nothing whatsoever in the analysis posted on Senator Leahy's website that would prevent a repeat of the abuses that Mark Mallah suffered, and the careers of those who become false positives are almost certain to be adversely affected, even if no "adverse personnel action" (as legally defined) is taken.