These are the links to synopsis of the Apr 25th hearing in the senate:
http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/te042501jhs.htm

http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/te042501wgi.htm

http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/te042501mhc.htm

http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/te042501rwk.htm

This statement from Jeffrey Smith is interesting and downright scary:

He states  “If we had never begun to use the polygraph, a strong case could be made that we should now not start. But we already are using it, and it has proven to be a very valuable tool. It has directly led to valuable information in many investigations – in cases involving both applicants for employment and current employees. It is also a significant deterrent. “

So Mr. Smith, (an analogy) since we discriminated in the past (be it because of age, race, or sex), and because we have already done so and continue to do so, then we should not stop this otherwise harmful practice????  You state it is wrong, but in the same breath you say it should continue because we are already doing it??!??!?!?!  Does that make it right to continue doing something that you yourself say is blatantly not accurate -  I think not!   Your argument is not logical.

In the same comments he states “ Our goal must be to make that cost – in terms of innocent lives harmed – zero”.   How can you do that, when you admit the machine is fallible?  The only way to do this is to get rid of it.