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

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.

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=3A2EFD44-08A0-4F...

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] 

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


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

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


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.

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!

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.