BAN ON POLYGRAPHS INTRODUCED

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130032-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 13, 2001
• Sequence Number: 32
• Publication Date: April 13, 1976
• Content Type: OPEN

1 43346
I commen
attention.
Con
Depal mment v --- --
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a sistently opposes the admission of poly- ple who have failed polygraph exams.
, . xr + +hn rra These are only some of the reasons
.. 4..,,.
a
previous order of the House the gentle- graph evluehce al, yr s. ---limit or ban
woman from New York (Ms. ABZUG) IS continues to reject applicants based on which ee have led 13 States to
employ e t
recognized for 10 minutes. polygraph evidence. of polygraphs for
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker, the Govern- I submit this is grossly unfair to the purposes. Unfortunately, many of the
ment Operations Committee recently re- Individuals so rejected who have to bear State laws are full of exemptions and ex-
leased a - report, entitled "The Use of the burden for the rest of their, lives of ceptions. bCongress anning polygraphs made several at-
oy-
Polygraphs and Similar Devices by Fed- having been denied employment by CIA of the last emplg
eral Agencies," which recommended a for security reasons. It is also unfair to meet torE situations, , one bill, ne a 1688t he last pbeing which
complete ban on the use of polygraph use this machine to retest employees the for Er March 7, 1974. ,
and similar "lie detector" devices by the when there is no reason to suspect them.
Federal Government. The hearings and I also wonder whether an employee is not But, Mr.. Speaker, no bill has passed
investigation upon which the report was open to suspicion if he or she refuses to botHouses, and since persuasion, en-
based were conducted by the Subcom- get "plugged in" every 5 years, It might treaty, and evidence do not seem to have
mittee on Government information and well be the case that the people rejected affected most public and private employ-
Individual Rights, which I presently by CIA or who refuse to be retested are ers using polygraphs, I am submitting a
chair. The subcommittee found that merely nervous of the machine and its bill to prevent the use of polygraph test-
there is no hard evidence that poly- operators, and are not security risks. Ing in connection with Federal and pri-
graphs can distinguish deception from After release of the report on poly- vate employment.
truth. Instead, it found that an indi- firaphs, I received several heart-rending The letters I received from private citi-
vidual's basic constitutional rights and letters from people who feel they were zens and from several Federal agencies
sense of dignity and privacy are violated abused by its use. I submit these letters follow, as does the text of the bill I have
by use of these machines. for the RECORD at the conclusion of my introduced:
Polygraphs are still extensively used remarks. I have omitted the names of the LETTERS RECEIVED FROM PRIVATE CITIZENS
for a variety of purposes by private in- people who wrote to me out of concern FEBRUARY 2, 1976.
dustry and by several agencies of Gov- for their protection, but my colleagues DEAR REPRESENTATIVE ABZUG: I am an hon-
ernment. These agencies include the are welcome to see these letters in the est person, but because of a nervous condi-
Postal Service, Customs Service, Federal committee office. tion, a "lie detector" test cost me a job.
Reserve System, Drug Enforcement Ad- Reading these letters, I am reminded Please ban the polygraph)
Sincerely,
ministration, FBI, CIA, and a number of Richard Nixon's remark on a White
of components of the Defense Depart- House tape:
ment. It has been estimated that about I don't know anything about polygraphs, FEBRUARY 10, 1976.
200,000 persons are tested yearly in pre- and I don't know how accurate they are, but DEAR Ms. ABZIIG: Having read recently in
employment and employment situations. I know they'll scare the hell out of people. the paper ... the article stating that you
I wrote to the agencies that the re- I might add that the machines are are proposing to disban Its detector tests on
port determined are giving polygraph totally ineffective in the case of patholo- the Federal, State, and Local levels, I was in-
tests and asked each to follow the re- dice) liars or those who are trained to spired to write this letter. If there is any
information you can send me in regards
port's recommendation to discontinue deceive, so that instead of screening out to this bill or proposal I would very much
such use. The replies have been disap- true risks, the polygraph will often just appreciate it.
pointing. None of the agencies agreed screen out the sensitive person. I am writing this to support you one-hun-
to observe the committee recommenda- Mr. Speaker, I also submit for the dred percent in this effort. Last year in Feb.
t=on. The CIA, for example, responded record copies of the letters I have re- or March, I was discriminated by a polygraph
that the polygraph "is an integral and ceived from the Departments of Treasury test given by the police department. ... .
essential part of security processing to and Defense, the CIA, the Postal Service, (I'm sure you have received many such letters
determine the security eligibility of per- and the Federal Reserve System. I have carrying examples of discrimination).. .
sons for Agency employment and for op received no substantive reply or acknowl- was in the process of completing my Master
erational purposes." The new Director of Science Degree in Counseling and had
edgement from the Justice Department. applied to the police to be a police woman.
of the Central Intelligence Agency, The reply of the Defense Department to . . . i passed all the necessary IQ and per-
George Bush, in a letter to me dated my request is typical. If I cut through sonality tests and the last step to be taken
February 25, 1976, boasts that "during the Department's profusion of words cor- before going before the police commission
the period 1963 through mid-1974, of rectly, it is also not changing its policy board was to take the lie detector tests .. .
those applicants for employment rejected on the use of these machines. without going into any of the details there
on security grounds, over 60 percent were. were I believe 2 or 3 questions re: persbnal
The report of the Government Opera- lifestyle, and because I did answer these
rejoped the basis of inyo during npolyde tions Committee addressed itself to use truthfully I was axed from this job pos-
graph pri nc or solely during - of so-called lie detector devices by the sibility.
graph interviews." ews." Federal Government. However, the use Now, I felt that not only were the ques-
Rather than limiting testing, it has of these machines in private industry is tions themselves discriminating, but the
been reported that the CIA is resuming far more extensive and the repercussions manner in which the test was given was too.
use of polygraphs for periodic testing of in terms of civil liberties is severe. Often The person giving me the test stated that
its employees. The privately published prospective employees are not informed "we don't hire liars, and the test is hooked
up to your nervous system" .. .
newsletter, Privacy Journal, says in its of the polygraph requirement on the I am a member ...A. and one of of N.W.G.P
March 1976, issue: application. They are simply told to ap- my very good friends is a charter member
The first result of leaks from Congres- pear at an address to take a test. The (there's very few of them) of the National
sional committees investigating intelligence findings of the polygraph tester are den- Gay Task Force . .
practices was for the Central Intelligence erally- accepted unquestioningly by the Anyway, I feel that because of this test,
notify Agency to riodi
c all set of the ts. hesu word employer, especially.when low paid serv- I am now being forced to work in a secre-
th t Sf al pin my
believe (Not
circulated ofirculated peio around polygraph CIA tests. headquarters s was that that ice employees are concerned. While the lnterestsok Ieposition
erson
become all that person
the agency's examiners were previously 0C- - standards for polygraph examiners have i not a lowed firmly be believe
copied on Vietnam-related work. CIA says improved, in some States anyone who oIs to or he
r she is, (especially, when the truth is told),
an employee is expected to get plugged in buys a polygraph machine can go into there is a flat case of discrimination. I have
every five years, although no objection is business. never taken this issue further (suits or the
raised, if he refuses. Results are not shared There is also the matter of the actual like) as I would be ruined in this town.
with then employee. CIA ur uses a computer
to categorize ze stress measures on the various and potential invasions of privacy Sri- Thank you.for the opportunity of being
individual polygraph charts. volved-the probing for details of the able to vent my thoughts and emotions on
NGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE fipru 1 D;, 1 V i o
Mr. Speaker, virtually every expert is subject's sex life, fantasies, fears; the
agues'
convinced that the polygraph is unrelia- search for union troublemakers and po-
ble to distinguish truth from falsehood. litical activists. The polygraph results
The Government Operations Committee are often stored and filed away whether
_..' '
i
hir
d not and there are
ec
s
e
the
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130032-8
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130032-8
April 13, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE H 3345
I cannot see how section 2 could arouse minority, certification of payment of part man from New Jersey (Mr. Rootso) Is
any controvers It merely instructs the or all of the benefits may be made, regard-
SSA to follow at the Supreme court less of the legal competence or incompetence recognized for 5 minutes.
t
t
o 1C1t641VC or some other Federal = ra w, PIUV
o that o e lte
civsnts
deprive an individ 1 of benefits which persona J~==~==y
he has previously en ed. Every munici- SEC. 2, Section 1383(c) (1) of the,Social crime victim compensation programs. tpe ) ) p. I
pal or State welfare a ncy in the coun- Security Act is amended to read as follows: have been joined in sponsoring this leg-
try must follow the % der hearing" re- "(c) (1) The secretary shall provide rea- Islation by 28 colleagues, several of whom
quirement of Goldberg elley, 394 U.S. sonable notice and opportunity for a hear- have previously introduced legislation on.
254 (1970) ; the SSA, no major source ing to any individual who is or claims to be this subject.
an eligible individual or eli
ible s
of su
o
e
d
t f
g
p
ppor
us
an
or so any oft elderly and
is in disagreement with any determination I am particularly pleased to be a spon-
_ _ ,
disabled, should not be gra d a license r_, of :
_ .
for
l
=.111111na
justice systtin-Lhe victim
appointment of a representativ ayee is ability of such individual to_ receive and man- of crime. Several of this bill's cospon-
for "the best interests" of a r pient, age his own benefits, if such individual re- sors and I have previously sponsored leg-
and therefore should be exempt ft due quests a hearing on the matter in disagree- islation on this subject in an attempt to
oro(!PCC rPrn,irPmPnte lichee 1.n+1, ?meat within thirty days after noting of such . _ ._
d
t
i
nation is receives.'" -" - """ w= _~~+=+l.4ullu in rtc-
monsense and recent court rulings, h
e
erm
SEC. 3. (a) Section 1383(a) (2), as amended, ognizing the needs of crime victims.
as McAuli;ee V. Carlson, 377 F Supp 6 Is further
Our
d
r
i
bill
amen
p
ev
ous
ed by adding the followi
s were the subject of
ng (D, Ct. Conn., 1974), 386 F Supp 1245 ( subp its (U) and (C) : extensive hearings conducted by the
Ct. Conn., 1975), and Dale v. Hahn, 48 "(B) The Secretary shall when ne
Subco
itt
cessary
mm
,,,-
ee on Criminal Justice un
F 2d 76 (CA 2, 1973). ake appropriate legal action to protect the der the leadership of Representative
Finally, section 3 calls upon the SSA terests or individuals whose benefits are WILLIAM L. HUNGATE. Some 25 witnesses
to take whatever legal steps are neces- d to representative payees under part A testified during these hearings, including
o his section. Whenever it appears that
sary to "protect the interests of individ-
Memb
f
ers o
co
Congress, State officials, aca-
Uals whose benefits are paid to repre- for a approper pointment mana a o a gement fiduciary and is necessary protetcion demic experts, representatives of the
the
sentative payees.". The section gives the of an dividual's benefits, or that a previous- Justice Department, the American Bar
SSA the obligation to enter court, when ly ap led fiduciary has mismana
Association and three crim
ed o
i
ti
g
,,
r
e v
c
ms
that is appropriate, in order to demand misaj~p?kd an Individual's benefits or failed Using the evidence gathered at these
an accounting of the funds from the. to rende proper accounting, the secretary hearings, the Criminal. Justice Subcom-
payee: and, if appropriate, he is to sue may, by h
o my authorized attorney, appear .nittee drafted the bill that is being in-
rany benefits that a represent. in the co aving original, concurrent, or troduced today. The subcommittee's
to p p y appellate i diction over said cause and
ative payee has im ro erl used or ac- make a grope resentation of such matters. drafting was thorough and painsaking,
cumulated for his own benefit. The see- The Secretary y petition for the appoint- extending through seven meetings, The
tion also gives the SSA the discretion, meat or remove f a fid
result of this effort is a bill th
i
t b
uc
a
ary and for the
ears
, first, to require all representative payees citing of a fiduc to account. The secre- the craftsmanship that has been the
to make the same periodic accountings tart' may, in his di etion, require all repre- allmark of the Criminal Justice Sub-
that are required of every guardian In sentative payees to ake periodic account- "ommittee.
every State court, and second, to require ings and to furnish rids or sureties su.f- The subcommittee bill, I believe, is one
flcient to protect the terest of the bene-
that representative payees furnish bond ficiary. e Secretary y "take legal action .. supports State crime victim programs
to recover any e benefits roperly disbursed
terests of the beneficiary, or accumulated by a repo ntative payee.'' iresently in existence and will encourage
These are hardly radical measures. "(C) Authority Is hereb rant
other sates to set up such programs It
d f
e
or the
, Sections 1 and 2 of this bill merely re- payment of any court or o r expenses !rr- does this by providing Federal reimburse-
quire that the SSA observe the same con- cident to any investigation a ourt proceed- . inent to a State with a crime victim com-
stitutional due process requirements that ing for the appointment or r oval of a ii- pensation program.
bind every other welfare agency In the duciary who receives payment er this sec- A State with a qualified program will
country. Section 3 simply gives to social tion, or in connection with any her court be reimbursed for 50 percent of the
proceeding hereby authort-~ "
S
u,
ection sue of the Social S it Act, ` _ui es
same protection that are given to the as amended. Is further amended b ydin -.The bill requires that the State program
assets of any person with a guardian or the following subsection (j) (2) : g compensate the victims of certain crimes
a conservator. It should be noted, too, "(j) (2) The secretary is authorized ake falling within the exclusive jurisdiction
that the Veterans' Administration, when effective legal action to protect the in st of the Federal Government, In return,
appointing a representative payee for a of any beneficiary whose benefits are pal however, the bill provides that the State
beneficiary, follows all the requirements a representative payee under sub sec t-ML program will receive 100-percent reim-
set forth in this bill. J(1) of this section. The Secretary may, whe - bursement for these awards.
necessary to protect an individual's estate Some dozen States presently have
The text of the bill follows: derived from benefits under this title. annaar
Social Security Act is amended to read"as fiduciary, or for the citing of a fiduciary to er from the others. For example, some
follows account. The Secretary may, in his discretion, Si. use the courts to make awards,
"(2) (A) Payments of the benefit of any require any representative payee to account si3111 use an independent agency, and
Individual may be made to any such indi- periodically and to furnish bonds or sureties scone e another State agency, such as a
vidual or to his eligible spouse (if any) or sufficient to protect the interest of the bene- work 1's compensation bureau. This
partly to each, or, if the Secretary finds that ficiary. The Secretary may, pending investiga- tion of at is drafted to give each State
a recipient of benefits under this subchapter mismanagement or misuse, suspend
is unable to manage funds because of mental payments to any representative payee and tl`:e ma um authority to design a vis-
or physical tncanacity or minnr,t,r ? -,. accumulate diem on behalf of the he?ea a- tim coin isation nrnrrrarn +he+ i+ h..
tog custody of the beneficiary. _ i+t~oca the e,
p
p aideto anyinterest other of the recipient, may be may take legal action to recover benefits im- Federa aid. mush a State qualifications
free to use
Pro date Person (including an ap- properly disbirsed or accumulated, and may the courts, an dependent agency, or any
P public or private agency) who is
interested in or concerned with the welfare incur costs in connection with any court pro- other agency administer its program,
of such individual or spouse:' seeding authorized by this subsection
Thi i
ss impo t legislation that can
(b) Section 405(j) of the Social Security hi' ye a ve
Act is amended to read as follows: 19 p0 ve impact upon our
"(j) (1) If the Secretary finds that an ap- THE VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT OF 1976 erininal justice tem. The Judiciary
plicant Is unable to properly manage benefits The SPEAKER pro l re Ccinmittee will aCti expeditiously on it.
because of mental or physical disability or previous order of the House. thegentle- o fact,
our next lmeeting, April 13. the agenda
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130032-8
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130032-8
April 13, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
this issue, and I certainly hope that some-
thing positive will be done to prohibit the
use of these tests.
Very sincerely,
DEAR Ms. ABzuc. I was happy to see a small
two paragraph article in the February 5th
Daily News reporting that your subcommit-
tee recommended discontinued use of the
polygraph machine in government.
As a former employee of a small milk store
chain (Golden Gallon of Georgia and Ten-
nessee) I had to take these tests every three
months. Before taking my last test, I told
the tester I had drank some soft drinks and
milk without paying.
I was asked to take the test anyway and
the tester . used abusive language and
everything else he could think of to intimi-
date me while attempting to make me esti-
mate a larger and larger amount of beverages
consumed without paying.
Since then, I have read up on polygraph
machines and, along with my personal ex-
perience (and demonstrations I have since
seen), I am convinced of the farcicity the
"lie detector" can represent if only the tester
is willing to be unethical. A lie detector,
I suggest, is the newest form of torturing
the wanted confessions out of citizens.
The polygraph means "guilty until proven
innocent." I believe that most of the in-
dividuals (and I have talked to at least four)
who operate and administer these tests to
lower and middle-class individuals do not
give a damn about the dignity or the rights
of the individual who is subjected to test-
ing. And, most important, citizens are not
aware of their rights in dealing with the "lie
detector."
I have a B.A. degree in Psychology and
am just beginning graduate work. The more
I think about this problem the more it
touches me and I hope you will consider
making this more than just a governmental
issue. All people should have. these same
rights-to deny abuse and ensure their rights
and freedom to the largest degree possible,
Sincerely,
FEBRUARY 3, 1976.
Representative BELLA S. ABZUG,
Chairman, Government Operations Subcom-
mittee, House of Representatives, Wash-
ington, D.C.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE ABZUG: After reading
an. article in February 2nd's Chicago Sun
Ties about your committee and its dealings
on lie detectors, I felt compelled to write to
you.
This concerns my .daughter and a close
friend of hers who were required to take peri-
odic lie detector tests as part of their agree-
ment upon employment at a McDonald's res-
taurant. The most recent test caused her
friend to cry, break out in tears and it emo-
tionally upset my daughter as well. The re-
sults, due to the nature of the questions and
manner in which they were asked, caused an
opinion of suspicion of untruth by the oper-
ator and both girls, although not fired, were
told they would be able to continue to work
there but would be watched. Thus both girls
quit rather than work under those condi-
tions.
They both feel the tests were unfair as
both are innocent of any wrongdoing and
are now out of jobs and since they both
finished high school in January, this makes
it rough for them.
I feel closer supervision of the employees
would be a better solution to McDonald's
problem plus a secure locker arrangement
for the employees to safeguard their per-
sonal property as my daughter has had
things stolen from her purse while working,
in lieu of the lie detector requirement.
I am in full agreement with your concept
to ban the use of lie detectors through legis-
lative means except for their use in govern-
mental security and hope you continue your
efforts in this direction.
Sincerely,
LETTERS RECEIVED -FROM AGENCIES
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, D.C., February 11, 1976.
Hon. BELLA S. ABZUG,
Chairwoman, Government Information and
Individual Rights Suteommittee, Com-
mittee on Government Operations,
House of Representatives, Washington,
D.C.
DEAR MS. CHAIRWOMAN: We have reviewed
the Committee on Government Operations
Report titled, "The Use of Polygraphs and
Similar Devices by Federal Agencies," which
you forwarded to the Secretary of Defense on
January 29, 1976. While the report was most
informative, the Department of Defense is
unable to concur at this time with the rec-
omniendations of the Committee majority.
Realizing the concern of the Committee
in the area of protection of the rights of U.S.
citizens, the Department of Defense has
adopted a comprehensive program on poly-
graph use to insure the protection of rights
of all individuals within the Department of
Defense. The stringent conditions and limi-
tations governing polygraph use are con-
tained in a recently published Directive
which is attached for your review. In effect,
the current Directive is culmination of the
efforts that have been made over the past
several years in attempting to upgrade the
polygraph program to a level that would
meet the high standards of your Committee.
In order that the Military Departments
might have the benefit of the views contained
in the Subcommittee Report, copies are being
furnished to the interested agencies. Addi-
tionally, this office is requesting a report of
polygraph operations within the Department
of Defense for the purpose of making an ob-
jective assessment of its utility in the in-
vestigative process.
Upon completition of these reports, we
will advise you further and also address the
extent to which a proper balance has been
achieved between the legitimate need of the
Department of Defense and the equally im-
portant need to respect the righjps of our
military and civilian personnel.
Sincerely,
TERENCE E. MCCLARY,
Assistant Secretary of Defense.
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM,
Washington, D.C., March 22, 1976.
Hon. BELLA S. ABZUG,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Government
Information and Individual Rights, Com-
mittee on Government Operations, Ray-
burn House Office Building, Washington,
D.C.
DEAR MADAM CHAIRWOMAN: I am pleased to
respond to your letter of January 29, 1976
which concerns the use of polygraphs in the
Federal Reserve System and contains the rec-
ommendation of the Committee on Govern-
ment Operations relating to the use of poly-
graphs by governmental agencies.
Records of the Board, as well as those of
each Reserve Bank, have been reviewed for
the purpose of determining those instances
in which either the Board or the Reserve
Banks have conducted or participated in poly-
graph examinations. The Board administered
no polygraph tests during 1975. However, it
appears that polygraph tests were adminis-
tered to employees of four Federal Reserve
Banks during 1975. All of these cases involved
criminal larceny and it appears that in most
instances the tests were conducted at the
suggestion of, or with the concurrence of,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
113347
It is my opinion that polygraph devices
should not be used to screen applicants or for
other personnel inquiries and, to the best of
my knowledge, they are not so used in the
Federal Reserve System. With respect to the
administration of polygraph tests in the
course of an investigation of a reported crime,
the use of such tests in aid of the investiga-
tive effort is a matter properly left to the in-
vestigative agency for determination. As in-
dicated, use of the polygraph test at the
suggestion and under the direction of an cm-
cial investigative authority has proven to the
Reserve Banks involved to be a useful ele-
ment in the investigative process. -
In order that each of our Reserve Banks
may be informed of the positions reflected in
the Committee Report as well as my views
thereon. I am forwarding copies of the
report' and of this letter to the President
of each Federal Reserve Bank.
Sincerely yours,
ARTHUR F. BURNS.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL,
Washington, D.C., April 6, 1976.
Hon. BELLA S. ABzuc,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Government
Information and Individual Rights,
Committee on Government Operations,
House of Representatives, Washington,
D.C.
DEAR MRS. ABzuc: This is in further reply
to your letter of January 29, 1976, request-
ing the Postal Inspection Service discontinue
the use of polygraph examinations.
The polygraph examination is used by the
Postal Inspection Service in some criminal
investigations to narrow a list of suspects
after other investigative methods have
failed. The Inspection Servies does not use
the examination in lieu of standard inves-
tigative procedures, but only as an aid or
adjunct to an investigation. Experience has
shown that the results of polygraph exami-
nations identify the deceptive employee;
however, by far the greatest benefit derived
from the use of the polygraph is in clear'ng
those employees who have nq knowledge of
a particular criminal violation.
Since the 1964 study by the Foreign Op-
erations and Government Information Sub-
committee into the use of the -polygraphs by
the Federal Government, the Inspection
Service has improved and modernized its
polygraph program. Qualifications for poly-
graph exai ziners have been made more rigid
so that now all Inspection Service examiners
receive indepth training at a recognized
polygraph school and have college degrees as
well as a background in criminal investiga-
tions. In addition to the formal training at a
recognized polygraph school, all examiners
receive on-the-job training as well. A
quality-control system has been imple-
mented to insure that the results of each -
examination are reviewed by a second ex-
aminer.
Polygraph examinations are conducted ex-
clusively on a voluntary basis. No stigma
is attached to n postal employee who de-
clines to take a polygraph examination and
adverse action is not taken against any per- -
son for unwillingness to volunteer to take
the examination. In fact, information con-
cerning an employee's refusal to submit to
the examination is not recorded in any of
his personnel files.
It has been our experience that the poly-
graph examination has proven to be a valu-
able aid in certain investigations. We, there-
fore, propose to continue to utilize this
supplementary investigative technique in
selected situations.
In view of - the foregoing, no study of
potential savings from the discontinued use
of the- polygraph examination has been
made.
Sincerely,
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130032-8
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130032-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - H01-SE April l.., 1 ii F (;
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY.
Washington, D.C., March 1, 1976.
Eon. BEr,r:A S. ABZUG,
Chairwoman. Government Information and
Individual Rights Subcommittee, Com-
init tee on Government Operations, House
of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MADAM CHAIRWOMAN: This responds
to your letter of January 29, 1976, to the Sec-
retary transmitting a copy of a report by the
Committee on Government Operations which
recommends that the use of polygraphs and
similar devices be discontinued by all govern-
ment agencies. Your letter also requests that
we advise you of when the Treausry Depart-
ment and its components intend to discon-
tinue use of the polygraph.
After examining not only the recent House
Report i94-795) but also the June 1974 hear-
ings before your predecessor subcommittee
and the testimony and exhibits of the Treas-
ury Department, it is our judgment that the
Treasury Department should not discontinue
the limited use of polygraph devices by its
law enforcement units.
The polygraph is used sparingly by Treas-
ury enforcement agencies as one among many
investigative techniques. It is not a general
exploratory mechanism but is used in those
few cases where other circumstances indi-
cate it may nave some value to the investi-
gation.
We believe that our use of the polygraph as
an investigative technique is proper and ben-
eficial. We find nothing in the Report or the
hearings on the polygraph to persuade the
't'reasury Department to relinquish this use-
ful instrument in the repository of criminal
investigative techniques.
We will, of course, continue to oversee the
use of polygraphs and other investigative
methods and to take such measures as are
needed to continue achieving effective en-
forcement of the law within our constitu-
tional framework.
With best regards,
`iincerely,
DAVID R. MACDONALD.
A .i.siant Secretary, Enforcement, Op-
'z tions-and Tariff Affairs.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.
Washington, D.C., February 25. 1976.
Hon BELLA S. ABZUG,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Government
Information and Individual Rights,
Committee on Government Operations,
House of Representatives, Washington,
D.C.
DEAR MADAME CHAIRWOMAN: This is in re-
ply to your letter of 29 January 1976 submit-
l,ing a copy of the report of the Committee
on Government Operations, House Report
94--795, entitled "The Use of Polygraph and
Similar Devices by Federal Agencies" And
requesting certain comments concerning the
Agency's continued use of the polygraph.
If legislation was enacted to prohibit the
use of the polygraph by all government agen-
cies for all purposes as recommended on page
16 of the report, it would seriously impair
the Director of Central Intelligence from
complying with his statutory responsibility
under the National Security Act of 1947. I
refer to Section 102(d) (3) of the Act which
makes the Director responsible for the pro-
tection of intelligence sources and methods
from unauthorized disclosure. An effective
personnel security program is vital to assure
this protection.
The polygraph is an integral and essential
part of security processing to determine the
ecuricv eligibility of persons for Agency em-
ployment and for operational purposes. As
statistics illustrate, during the period 1963
tbroui h mid-1974, of those applicants for
employment rejected on security grounds,
over 60 percent were rejected on the basis of
recent records, about half of the applicants
who had been disapproved on the basis of in-
formation developed during polygraph Inter-
views had already completed all other se-
curity screening and been provisionally ap-
proved on this basis. Without the polygraph
program. the disqualifying information on
these cases would have remained unknown.
In addition, it is reasonable to presume that
the program is a significant. deterrent to
application for employment by unsuitable
candidates, and more importantly, penetra-
tion atie:npts by foreign intelligence serv-
ices.
The v[!Iity of CIA's polygraph program is
not solei a function of its part in contribut-
ing information leading to the rejection of
unsuitable candidates. The preponderance of
polygraph interview reports are favorable.
Most of these favorable reports constitute
useful a,,d comforting confirmation of other
screening; procedures; the remainder repre-
sent favorable resolutions of allegations or
suspicions which otherwise could result in in-
justices ;; r in unnecessary defensive measures.
The Central Intelligence Agency has con-
sistently urged continuance of its polygraph
program .n its reports to congressional com-
mittees '.,r proposed legislation and hearings
_concerni,g the polygraph. We note hr the
Dissenting Views of your report, on page 56,
that on t!5 March 1975, based on the hearings
held: in t74, that the Subcommittee initially
approve- a recommendation which would
have prohibited the use of the polygraph in
all but cases involving national security and
for law enforcement purposes provided fifth
amerrdm,nt rights under the Constitution
were na violated. This concern for national
security was recognized by former Senator
.am Ervin, a strong advocate of Individual
tights, tough he otherwise objected to the
use of the polygraph. In his proposed legisla-
tion to protect the personal privacy Of gov-
,rumen,; employees, introduced during: sev-
eral Congresses prior to his retirement from
public office, Senator Ervin expressly excepted
the CIA and the National Security Agency
Prom the provision barring the use of the
polygraph in Government. Senator Ervin's
last bill was S. 1688. Serrate Report 93-724,.
which passed the Senate 7 March 1974.
The CIA is cognizant of the danger of
abuse inherent in the use of any instrument
used to aid in distinguishing truths from
untruth. Consequently, we have adopted
strict procedures to prevent abuses and to
protect hose taking the examination. These
include.
Notiii:;ation to each applicant for em-
ploymen at the time he is given an applica-
tion form of the intent to use a polygraph
examine ,ion in the course of his employ-
ment pr, ceasing;
Coordination with the Office of Personnel
and the Office of Medical Services to deter-
mine if a polygraph interview is advisable;
Advance written consent of. the applicant;
Notifi'-ation of the privilege against self-
incrimination on questions pertaining to
violatio :,s of criminal law;
Reviewing all questions with the applicant
before testing;
Limit ,ng questions to :hose exclusively re-
lated to security issues;
Informing the applicant that the examina-
tion m .y be monitored and possibly re-
corded 1.0 let him know there are no hid-
den prccedures;
Rand-in monitoring by a specialized super.
visor to insure that no improper questions
are asked;
Maintenance of polygraph records ii-
separate files with very strict need-to-knots
rules governing access;
Prohibition of release of polygraph.
acquired information outside the Agency
without my approval or that of the Depat;
information developed principally or solely Director and only if such a release is necee
during polygraph interviews. In a sampling of sary in the interest of national security;
The polygraph examiner makes no rec;rn-
mendation as to the security suitability, o!
the person tested; and
Evaluation of the polygraph report is but
one element in the total personnel secnritc
screening program.
With respect to reliability, defined in ac-
cordance with scientific convention as the
consistency of the interpretations of the
polygraph charts, agreement studies were
conducted as part of an Agency research
program which was initiated partially in re-
sponse to the hearings held by the Foreign
Operations and Government Informatiol
Subcommitee in the early 1960's. Numerical
results of these studies are complex and
would require etxensive explanation, but
comparisons may be useful. Comparable
studies of similar professional groups are
scarce but two were found, involving cardio-
logists evaluating EKG charts for cardia+
pathology and psychologists evaluating:
MMPI test results for psychopathology. The
CIA polygraphers' chart interpretation=
were as good as or better than these lw(,
groups.
Finally, the selection of polygraph ofih~--err
is extremely discriminating as to their quali-
fications, intelligence, integrity, and hig1-:
character. They are given a rigorous train-
ing program which is a continuing proses..
to keep them abreast of development- it
their professional field. CIA has maintained
a vigorous research effort inquiring into nev
techniques and equipment to insure that the
highest standards are maintained.
In view of my statutory responsibility u,
protect intelligence sources and methods and
the proven reliability of the polygraph and
the safeguards in its utilization, I must dis-
agree with the recommendation of the Com-
mittee. This Agency's personnel security
standards must be maintained at the higherni
levels. Termination of the Agency's poll-
graph program would increase its vulner-
ability to hostile penetration and would se-
riously impact on the Agency's effectiveness
in carrying out its foreign intelligence col-
lection mission.
Sincerely,
GEORGE BUSH.
Disarm,.
II.R. 3353
A bill to protect the constitutional rights ui
citizens of the United States and to pre-
vent unwarranted invasion of their privacy
by prohibiting the use of the-polygraph-
type equipment for certain purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and Housa o;
Representatives of the United States o;
America in Congress assembled, That (ai
chapter 13, of title 18, United States Code, 1,
amended by adding at the end thereof the,
following new section:
246. Polygraph testing in connection v.lt
employment
"fa) For purposes of this section, t),,.
term-
??(1) `polygraph test' means an examina-
tion administered to an individual by
mechanical or electrical means for the pur-
pose of measuring or otherwise examine
the veracity or truthfulness of such individ-
ual; and
"(2) 'employee organizations' includes ai,
brotherhood, council, federation, organisa-
tion, union, or professional organization
made up in whole or in part of employees
and which-has as one of its purposes dealing
with departments, agencies, commissions, In-
dependent agencies of the United States, or
with businesses and industries engaged in or
affecting interstate commerce, concerning
the conditions and terms of employment 4:4
such employees.
"(b) (1) Any officer or employee or person
acting for or on behalf of the United Stab=s
who willfully-
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130032-8
 April 13, 1d7'b'-roved For Release 2002/01/02: CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130032-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
"(A) permits, requires, or requests, or
attempts to require or request, any officer
or employee of the United States, or any
individual applying for employment as an
officer or employee of the United States, to
take any polygraph test in connection with
his services or duties as an officer or em-
ployee, or in connection With such individ?'
zeal's application for employment; or
"(B) denies employment to any individ-
ual, or discharges, disciplines, or denies pro-
motion to any officer or employee of the
United States, or threatens to commit any
such act by reason of ? his refusal or failure
to submit to such requirement or request,
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and pun-
ished by a fine not exceeding $1,000.
"(2) Any person engaged in any business
or other activity in or affecting interstate
commerce, or any individual acting under the
authority of such person who willfully-
"(A) permits, requires, or requests, or
attempts to require or request any indi-
vidual employed by such person or any
individual applying for employment in con-
nection with such business or activity to
take any polygraph test in connection with
his services or duties or in connection with
his application for employment; or
"(B) who denies employment to any indi-
vidual, or discharges, disciplines, or denies
promotion to any individual employed in
connection with such business or activity,
or threatens to commit such act by reason
of his refusal or failure to submit to such
requirement, or request,
"(3) With the written consent of any per-
son affected or aggrieved by a violation or
threatened violation of subsection (b) of
this section, any employee organization may
bring such action on behalf of any such
person, or may intervene in such action.".
(b) The analysis of chapter 13 of such
title is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new item:
"246. Polygraph testing in connection with
employment."
SEC. 2. The amendments made by this Ac
shall become effective thirty days after th
date of enactment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from "Hawaii (Mr. MATSUNAGA) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
[Mr. MATSUNAGA addressed the
House. His remarks will appear hereafter
in the Extensions of Remarks.)
PASSOVER IS A TIME TO REMEMBER
THE PERSECUTED JEWS OF THE
SOVIET UNION
The Speaker pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Connecticut (Mr. COTTER) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. COTTER. Mr
Speaker
milli
.
,
ons
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and pun- of Jews throughout the world will begin
fished by a fine not exceeding $1,000. Wednesday night to relive the events of
"(c) (1) Whenever- the Passover, the night when the Lord
"(A) any officer or employee or any per- liberated the people of Israel from
son acting for or on behalf of the United slavery. When they celebrate the ancient
States, or
"(B) any person engaged in any business liturgy of the Seder, the Jewish commu-
or other activity in or affecting interstate pity in this country will hear once again
-fin uuutiurlsy 01 aucn person,
violates or threatens to violate any of the
provisions of subsection (b) of this section,
any employee or officer of the United States,
or any person applying for employment in
the executive branch of the United States
Government, or any individual seeking to
establish civil service status or eligibility for
employment in the United States Govern-
ment, or any individual applying for em-
ployment in connection with any business or
activity engaged in' or affecting interstate
commerce, or any individual employed by a
person engaged in such business or activity,
who is affected or aggrieved by the violation
or threatened violation, may bring a civil
action in his own behalf or in behalf of
himself and others similarly situated,
against the offending officer or employee or
person in the United States district court
for the district in which the violation occurs
or is threatened, or for the district in which
the offending person is found, or in the
United States District Court for the District
of Columbia, to prevent the threatened vio-
lation or to^ obtain redress against the con-
meaning during times of persecution and
suffering. When the Jewish people were
dispersed from the land of Israel by
Roman armies, they shared the bread of
afllic ion and recalled God's promise of
freedom. When they languished In the
ghettos of Europe, they encouraged each
other with the words of the Book of
Exodus:
"God heard our moaning, and God re-
membered His covenant with Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob....
And even In the extermination camps
of Hitler's Europe, where they were
marked for death, they somehow found
the courage to sing the joyous songs of
Passover.
Mr. Speaker, Adolf Hitler belongs to
the past, but the persecution of the Jew-
ish people continues. Day after day we
hear new stories of oppression from the
Soviet Union, where Jews are denied the
'
t
H 3349
Jewry. And let us join the Jewish people
oppressed in any foreign land when they
sing the old refrain of Passover:
"This year we celebrate here.
Next year in the land of Israel.
Now we are still bondsmen.
Next year may all be free."
HUD SECRETARY IN VIOLATION
OF INTENT OF LAW
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
woman from New Jersey (Mrs. MEYNER)
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MEYNER. Mr. Speaker; I am cer-
tain that everyone in this Chamber is
well aware of the problems facing home-
owners with outstanding mortgages as
our current economic crisis continues.
Last year, this Congress wisely passed
legislation designed to aid those mort-
gagees threatened by foreclosure. The
Emergency Homeowner's Relief Act pro-
vided for direct loans to be administered
by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development in order to prevent wide-
spread foreclosures and distress sales of
homes. The act empowered the Secretary
of HUD to administer and implement the
emergency program at her discretion.
Mr. Speaker, the Secretary has not re-
leased $1 of the $35 million that was ap-
propriated for this program. And this
funding expires in just a few months on
July 1, 1976..
I believe that my record substantiates
the fact that I support fiscal austerity
and the decrease or omission of needless
spending programs. However, I feel that
it Is the duty of the Federal Govern-
ment to provide reasonable and fiscally
responsible services to its citizenry. Con-
sequently, I find the Secretary's decision
to hold. these funds in abeyance in di-
rect violation of the intent of the law.
I speak of Secretary Hills' decision to
withhold these funds until 1.2 percent
of all mortgages in. the Nation are 3
months or more in arrears. With appar-
ent disregard for the realistic problem
of regional unemployment and the vary-
ing socioeconomic levels throughout the
country, the Secretary is depriving thou-
sands of eligible Americans while she
awaits statistical legitimacy. Certainly
this amount to yet another example of
bureaucratic disregard for the very real
problems of our constituents.
Presently I am compiling statistics re-
garding mortgage delinquencies in the
13th Congressional District of New Jer-
sey in an effort to present strong statisti-
sta
auuve all, where Jews are denied the cad evidence that clearly depicts the need
es
shall have Jurisdiction to
determine such civil try and for a revision of HUD's financing for-
the actuality action irrespective of right to return to the land of Israel. The hula, Whether the total mortgage port-
or amount of pecuniary injury Soviet persecution of these people vio- folio contains 1.2 percent of home
clone or threatened, and without regard to lates the basic freedoms proclaimed in mortgages 3 months or more In arrears,
whether the aggrieved party shall have ex- the United Nations Charter and the Hel- the fact remains that there are several
hausted any administrative remedies that sinki accords, two documents which the hundred people in my district who could
may be provided by law, and to issue such Soviet Union has signed. benefit from restraining order, Interlocutory Injunction, Mr. Speaker, we must not watch in men ation of this act tI will presentpmy
enter such other iu mandatory or decree
permanent injunction, or mandatory injunc- silence while Soviet Jews are subjected findings to you when they are completed.
tion, or as may be necessary or appropriate to prevent to harassment, humiliation, and impris In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to
the threatened violation, or to afford the onnient. Let us not justify a tragedy with ascertain the number and percent of de-
plaintiff and other similarly situated com the pious apology: "We knew, but there linquent mortgages in their districts and
plete relief against the consequences of the was nothing we could do." Let us con- to join me in my attempt to correct this
violation' tinue. to work for the freedom of Soviet
grave inequity.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130032-8
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130Q32.
H 3350 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --1HOt 5E Apy?acc? 13,
IS "INTERNAL SECURITY" A LEGITI- to suggest, for a momentthat these insurgen- Mr. KOCH. I mean the request, isn't t:at
MATE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE cies don't exist. Rather I wonder whether such $3 million?
UNITED STATES PROVIDING MIL- an internal threat is sufficient for our sup- General Flsx. $2.5 million is for credit
plying military assistance? sales.
ITARY ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN Mr. WINSHIP. (Aide from State Depart- Mr. KocH. Okay, when I say we give, I am
GOVERNMENTS? I DON'T THINK meat). May I speak to that, Mr. Koch? not talking in terms of whether they pay for
SO. The fact is that, as provided in the law, in- the military supplies. I suppose "furnish" Is
The SPEAKER pro tempo[,,. Under a ternal security is one of the threats to the a more appropriate word. Why should we
existence of a friendly government, which we furnish $3 million to a country that will use
previous order of the House, the gentle- consider as authorized and is a legitimate that aid against its people for terror
man from New York, (Mr. KocH) is purpose. purposes?
recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Kocx. I am interested in that. Your Mr. WILLIAMS. I don't think, Mr. Koch, , ou
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Speaker, last week position is that if there is an internal threat, could equate our provision iof security assi it-
hearings were held before the Foreign that that. can be the basis for our provid- ance
Operations Subcommittee of the Appro- ing military aid. That is to say, if. there is own population?
Committee, of which I am a some revolutionary force in Brazil, we will Mr. KocH. Don't you agree there is no
priations provide aid to the Government of Brazil to external threat to Uruguay? Is there any
member, concerning U.S. military assis- put down an internal insurgency? country that wants to take it over at the,
tance to foreign governments. Upon read- Mr. WcrlsHn'. We provide security assist- moment?
ing the justifications for military aid in ance as it factor in our bilateral relations Mr. WILLIAMS. No.
Latin America, I came across time and with friendly foreign governments, friends Mr. KocH. There isn't. any.
again references to internal disorder and and allie, and that is considered by the for- Mr. WILLIAMS, That is correct.
insurgencies. During the hearings, I eign governments a very essential element Mr. KocH. To give to the security forces
raised questions concerning the validity in their relationship with us. It has when it has a reputation as the terror
of such a justification. The exchange Mr. KocH. I will bet, for them, but how chamber of Latin America, do you suggest
about for us? Didn't you agree with my state- that those arms are then not going to be
which followed with representatives from meat that the U.S. would not intervene in used against Uruguayans?
the Departments of State and Defense the internal affairs of other countries, and Mr. WILLIAMS. The obvious purpose of the
was intriguing. I seriously question our yet didn't you also state that the U.S. con- threat is internal security, as I say.
whole military aid program to Latin siders a purely internal threat a legitimate Mr. KocH. From Uruguayans?
America, its purposes and objectives. I reason for our providing military assistance? Mr. WILLIAMS. Or Argentines, who have
plan to offer an amendment which will Mr. WINSHIP. That is correct. come across the border, but it is essentially
strike aid to Uruguay, which is now the Mr. Kocx. How do you reconcile those two an internal threat.
statements? Mr. KocH. Let me ask one more question.
equal of Chile in terms of torture, in the Mr. WINSIIIP. I do not consider them con- Didn't we pass legislation, not very long ago
near future. tradictory. which bars our providing aid for Internal
With the thought that it might in- Mr. KocH. Explain that to me, please. police purposes?
terest my colleagues, I am appending the eet r. WmsHrp. cause will be seekinaits the foreign gomrn- Mr. ILLIA S. public Saf ty Prog am-Kocn. Public purposes.
concerning of that part of the hearings mIn any case, as pointed up by the Chairma> Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct.
aid to Latin America. at the beginning of the session. Mr. KOCH. Do you distinguish between an
KOCH EXCEPT it will-- internal situation as exists in Uruguay or
Hearings before Foreign Operations Subcom- Mr. KOCH. Wait a minute, if you will. Thai Nicaragua or Guatemala from the armed
mittee of Appropriations Committee, For- is another justification. The justification hai forces we are funding? Are not those actually
eign Military Assistance April 7, 1976 you are raising now is that if we don't sel'. police functions that the army carries out?
Mr. KocH. General, may I take you to Latin it, somebody else will. I haven't asked about Mr. WILLIAvery Defense study of
like to set the premise for my questioning. the premises forproviding military aid, yov legislation, and with the police function in
Would you agree with that it's the stated use the threat or trul Indigenous in- mind, and I
ai s! there has been a the record will show us observ tier of
in the internal affairs of other countries? Is
that a fair statement?
General FISH. I think so. The State De-
partment, do you agree?
KOCH. Okay. In looking through
Mr
.
the justifications for military assistance in
Latin America, I came across these notes with
respect to these countries. I will read just a
few of them. El Salvador, and I quote: "Iii-
ternally there have been numerous terrorist
acts, but there is no reason to believe they
pose a serious threat to the present govern-
ment". The request for military assistance
there is $3.1 million.
(xuatamala: "The traditional internal in-
surgency has abated in recent years." We
gave them $1.1 million.
General FISH. Sir, that is from the Con-
gressional presentation doucument?
Mr. KOCH. Yes. Nicaragua: "There exists in
Nicaragua an insurgent organization capable
of conducting rural raids and terrorist act-
occasion that we are not going to get in from military security functions.
volved in the internal affairs of anothe - Mr. Kocx. Let me pursue that, if I may.
country, and then subsequently, you Said - Doesn't Nicaragua have only one force? As
yes, we are going to help governments pu' I recall, there is no police force per se, but
down insurgencies. Which is it? the military carries out those functions.
Mr. WrNsHiP. We are attempting to wor Mr. WILLIAMS. It doesn't have an army as
with friendly governments to assist them i:'' such, it has a National Guard, but I am not
maintaining their security. certain about the police force.
Mr. KocH. Now Uruguay is now known a:, Mr. KocH. The single force is used for
the torture house of Latin America. That 1; police purposes as well as- armed services.
the judgement of Amnesty Inteanationa:i Will you accept that as an accurate state-
t
?
after its investigations. Are you familiar wit's mea
the fact-that Uruguay now Is alleged to sar? Mr. WILLIAMS. I
t f torture? know,,
ms o
l
1
police function.
Mr. KocH. Okay, then, will you look into
ri er
pass Chi
e
Mr. WINSHIP. Mr. Williams from the Lati.:t Mr. KOCH. Well, If I am correct in that,
American Bureau is more familiar with tha= 1. aren't we then funding police functions? Are
allegation. we not then funding police functions in a
Mr. KOCH. Is that a reasonable statemel state that allegedly commits torture on its
I just made? own citizens?
Mr. WILLIAMS. That 1s Amnesty Interne - Mr. WILLIAMS. I can't accept the premise
tional'i position. that the National Guard is involved in a
capable of coping with the insurgent activi- Mr. WILLIAMS. I think it would be difficu t
ties." Their request is $3.1 million, Uruguay: to say.
"Terrorism was a serious threat to-the gov- Mr. KocH. Which is worse?
ernment in Uruguay during 1968 to 1973. This Mr_ WILLIAMS. Yes?
threat has been greatly reduced by the Uru- Mr. KocH. They are both pretty bad.
guayan security forces, although the potent- bir. WILLIAMS. I think that is a corre t
ial for terrorism remains." The request there statement.
is $3 million. Mr. KocH. Would you please tell me th+-n
Those are all quotes. There are others. One why we should give to Uruguay, which is
other note. I find it curious that Costa Rica, considered the charnal house of Latin Amc,,-
which has no defense forces and which there- ica, $3 million for its security force..?
fore receives no military aid from the U.S.. Doesn't that make us part and parcel of t>:e
is one of the very few democracies left in torture operation?
Latin America. What I want to ask is this: General FISH. Sir, we are not giving then
t it b~'e
ss s a
that?
Mr.. WILLIAMS. I
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Connecticut (Mr. DODD) is rec-
ognized for 5 minutes.
[Mr. DODD addressed the House. His
remarks will appear hereafter in the Ex-
tensions of Remarks.]
why do we use, as justification for military $3 million. $50,000 for gran a
assistance, references to internal insurgencies $500,000 for grant training: $550,000 is tie The SPEAKER pro tempore, Under a
that exist in these countries. I don't mean grant previous order of the House, the gentle-
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130032-8