EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH PROTECTION ACT OF 1985

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 38
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 8, 2011
• Sequence Number: 31
• Publication Date: March 12, 1986
• Content Type: MISC

Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
March 12, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 1033
ing out "March 17, 1986" in the last sen-
tence and inserting in lieu thereof "April 30,
1986".
(g) REINSURANCE CONTRACTS.-Section
249(a) of the National Housing Act is
amended by striking out "March 17, 1986"
in the second sentence and inserting in lieu
thereof "April 30, 1986".
(h) LIMITATION ON INSURANCE COMMIT-
MENTS.-Section 531 of the National Hous-
ing Act is amended to read as follows:
"LIMITATION ON COMMITMENTS TO INSURE
LOANS AND MORTGAGES
"SEC. 531. The authority of the Secretary
to enter into commitments to insure loans
and mortgages under this Act shall be effec-
tive for fiscal year 1986 only to such extent
or in such amounts as are or have been pro-
vided in appropriation Acts for such fiscal
year.".
(i) ARMED SERVICES HOUSING INSURANCE.-
(1) CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF ARMED
FoRCEs.-Section 809(f) of the National
Housing Act is amended by striking out
"March 17, 1986" in the last sentence and
inserting in lieu thereof "April 30. 1986".
(2) DEFENSE HOUSING FOR IMPACTED
AREAS.-Section 810(k) of the National
Housing Act is amended by striking out
"March 17, 1986" in the last sentence and
inserting in lieu thereof "April 30, 1986".
(J) LAND DEVELOPMENT INSURANCE.-SeC-
tion 1002(a) of the National Housing Act is
amended by striking out "March 17, 1986"
in the last sentence and inserting in lieu
thereof "April 30, 1986".
(k) GROUP PRACTICE FACILITIES INSUR-
ANCE.-Section 1101(a) of the National Hous-
ing Act is amended by striking out "March
17, 1986" in the last sentence and inserting
in lieu thereof "April 30, 1986".
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF REHABILITATION LOAN AU-
THORITY.
Section 312(h) of the Housing Act of 1964
is amended by striking out "March 17, 1986"
in the last sentence and inserting in lieu
thereof "April 30, 1986".
SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF RURAL HOUSING AUTHORI-
TI F.S.
(a) RENTAL HOUSING LOAN AUTHORITY.-
Section 515(b)(4) of the Housing Act of 1949
is amended by striking out "March 17, 1986"
in the last sentence and inserting in lieu
thereof "April 30, 1986".
(b) RURAL AREA CLASSIFICATION.-Section
520 of the Housing Act of 1949 is amended
by striking out "March 17, 1986" in the last
sentence and inserting in lieu thereof "April
30.1986".
(C) MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANT
AND LOAN AUTHORITY.-Section 523(f) of the
Housing Act of 1949 is amended by striking
out "March 17, 1986" and inserting in lieu
thereof "April 30, 1986".
SEC. I. EXTENSION OF FLOOD AND CRIME INSUR-
ANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) FLOOD INSURANCE.-
(1) GENERAL AUTHORITY.-Section 1319 of
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 Is
amended by striking out "March 17, 1986"
and inserting in lieu thereof "April 30,
1986".
(2) EMERGENCY IMPLEMENTATION.-Section
1336(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968 is amended by striking out "March
17, 1986" and inserting in lieu thereof "April
30, 1986".
(3) ESTABLISHMENT OF FLOOD-RISK
ZONES.-Section 1360(a)(2) of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 is amended by
striking out "March 17, 1986" and inserting
in lieu thereof "April 30, 1986".
(b) CRIME INSURANCE.-Section 1201(b)(1)
of the National Housing Act is amended by
striking out "March 17, 1986" in the matter
preceding subparagraph (A) and inserting in
lieu thereof "April 30, 1986".
SEC. 5. MISCELLANEOUS EXTENSIONS.
(a) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT CLASSIFICATIONS.-
(1) METROPOLITAN CITY.-Section 102(a)(4)
of the Housing and Community Develop-
ment Act of 1974 is amended by striking out
"March 17, 1986" in the second sentence
and inserting in lieu thereof "April 30,
1986".
(2) URBAN COUNTY.-Section 102(a)(6) of
the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 is amended by striking out
"March 17, 1986" in the second sentence
and inserting in lieu thereof "April 30,
1986".
(b) SECTION 202 INTEREST RATE LIMITA-
TION.-Section 223(a)(2) of the Housing and
Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 1983 is
amended by striking out "March 17, 1986"
and inserting in lieu thereof "April 30,
1986".
(C) HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT OF
1975.-Section 312 of the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act of 1975 is amended by strik-
ing out "March 17, 1986" and inserting in
lieu thereof "April 30, 1986".
The joint resolution was ordered to
be engrossed and read a third time,
was read the third time, and passed,
and a motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
THREE NEW RESCISSION PRO-
POSALS, SIX NEW DEFERRALS
OF BUDGET AUTHORITY, AND
FIVE REVISED DEFERRALS OF
BUDGET AUTHORITY-MES-
SAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES (H.
DOC. NO. 99-180)
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid
before the House the following mes-
sage from the President of the United
States, which was read and, together
with the accompanying papers, with-
out objection, referred to the Commit-
tee on Appropriations and ordered to
be printed:
(For message, see proceedings of the
Senate of today, Wednesday, March
12, 1986.)
EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH
PROTECTION ACT OF 1985
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-
ant to House Resolution 337 and rule
XXIII, The Chair declares the House
in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill, H.R. 1524.
0 1545
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved
itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1524) to prevent the denial of
employment opportunities by prohib-
iting the use of lie detectors by em-
ployers involved in or affecting inter-
state commerce, with Mr. GONZALEZ in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the
rule, the first reading of the bill is dis-
pensed with.
Under the rule, the gentleman from
California [Mr. MARTINEZ] will be rec-
ognized for 30 minutes and the gentle-
man from Vermont [Mr. JEFFORDS]
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from California [Mr. MARTINEZ].
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
H.R. 1524, the Employee Polygraph
Protection Act, which passed out of
my subcommittee and the Education
and Labor Committee.
The use of polygraphs has multi-
plied in the private workplace, and 80
percent of its use has been for the
screening of job applicants. Yet, in tes-
timony before my subcommittee by
victims of the polygraph, by reformed
former polygraphers, by researchers,
and by civil liberties and labor groups,
we have seen how the polygraph ma-
chine is an unreliable tool for detect-
ing truth and dishonesty.
The polygraph machine is basically
a machine which measures body tem-
perature, blood pressure, and blood
pulse levels to detect stress during
questioning by polygraphers. We all
know that stress can result from any
number of stimuli, including being in-
vestigated or accused falsely of wrong-
doing.
In addition, the polygrapher plays
judge, jury, and God in determining a
worker's fate for all future jobs. No
one reviews or second guesses a poly-
grapher's findings, and polygraphers
often boast of never having failed to
get their "man or woman." Merely reg-
ulating polygraphers by licensing or
requiring bachelor of arts degrees only
elevates a voodoo craft into a science.
This bill will prohibit the use of po-
lygraphers in the workforce, with ex-
ceptions given to the Government
sector and in case of national security
and the drug industry for people who
have access to dangerous drugs. Gov-
ernment bodies will continue to be
able to use the polygraph machines
for police investigations.
This bill is important, because it pro-
tects worker's rights to privacy, to due
process, and to the presumption of in-
nocence until some degree of evidence
proves them guilty of alleged wrong
acts. It is important to emphasize that
all courts of law prohibit the use of
polygraphs in court as evidence unless
stipulated by the parties. In addition,
the American Psychological Associa-
tion opposes the use of polygraphs as
a scientifically reliable lie detector in-
strument.
Employers would be better off if
sound auditing and personnel screen-
ing practices would be employed which
would truly determine the fitness of
an individual for employment or con-
tinued employment.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
Mr. Chairman, polygraphs have
become a big business. An estimated 2
million polygraph examinations are
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
H 1034 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
administered each year. Millions of
employees have been, and continue to
be, judged on the basis of these exami-
nations. Thousands of employers use
them for one purpose or another. Yet
neither they nor we know for certain
how accurate these tests really are.
That uncertainty alone was enough to
convince me not to cosponsor the bill
before us. I did so because I wanted to
take a good, hard look at this legisla-
tion and the issues it addresses.
The validity of polygraphs was the
subject of a 1983 study by the Office
of Technology Assessment which
found estimates of accuracy ranging
from 64 to 98 percent. Overall, OTA
found that when used in criminal in-
vestigations, polygraphs work better
than chance, but have error rates that
could be considered significant.
Unfortunately, most studies ascrib-
ing high rates of accuracy to poly-
graphs have been conducted by poly-
graphers themselves. Asking them to
gauge their own validity is a little like
asking me to analyze the correctness
of my voting record. In both cases, the
answer is near perfect. Studies by
people who do not make their living
from polygraphs have found a sub-
stantially lower rate of accuracy.
Some businesses, of course, have tes-
tifed that polygraphs are essential to
combating theft in the workplace.
They maintain that polygraphs are
useful in both preemployment screen-
ing and in the investigation of a par-
ticular incident. Other businesses,
however, argue that polygraphs are
not useful; that they are not accurate
and even counterproductive. These
employers have found that if you
don't put some trust in your employ-
ees, they may do their best to merit
your mistrust.
With business divided and science
unsure, what should our approach be?
Mixed reviews are nothing new to
polygraphs, dating back to at least the
beginning of this century. Although
Congress has confonted the issue only
in the past two decades, the courts
have been facing it for a good deal
longer.
In the leading case on the admissabi-
lity of polygraphs, Frye v. U.S., (CA
DC; 293 F. 1013, 12/3/23), a unani-
mous U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia rejected the de-
fendant's attempt to introduce the re-
sults of a lie detector test. As the court
noted, the theory underlying the lie
detector "seems to be that the truth is
spontaneous, and comes without con-
scious effort, while the utterance of
falsehood requires a conscious effort,
which is reflected in blood pressure."
In ruling against the admissability of
the lie detector, the court wrote that:
Just when a scientific principle or discov-
ery crosses the line between the experimen-
tal and demonstrable stages is difficult to
define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the
evidential force of a principle must be recog-
nized, and while the courts will go a long
way in admitting expert testimony deduced
from a well-recognised scientific principle or
discovery, the thing from which the deduc-
tion is made must be sufficiently established
to have gained general acceptance in the
particular field in which it belongs.
We think the systolic blood pressure de-
ception test has not yet gained such stand-
ing and scientific recognition among physio-
logical and phychological authorities as
would Justify the courts in admitting expert
testimony deduced from the discovery, de-
velopment and experiments thus far made.
That decision was rendered over 60
years ago. Does it still hold true? Have
polygraphs crossed the line to scientif-
ic acceptance?
To be accurate, the instrument dis-
cussed in the Frye case apparently
only measured blood pressure, where-
as today's polygraph also measures
breathing and sweating. Despite the
addition of these indicia, however, psy-
chological authorities have not im-
proved their opinion of the polygraph.
In fact, a month and a half ago, the
American Psychological Association
adopted a resolution stating that the
evidence of polygraphs' validity re-
mains unsatisfactory, and is particu-
larly poor for employment screening
and in dealing with victims of crime.
The resolution also warned against the
potential for great damage to the in-
nocent people who will be labeled as
Liars by the polygraph.
Some courts have permitted the in-
troduction of polygraph results, typi-
cally with a written agreement by
both parties in advance of the exami-
nation. However, most courts continue
to adhere to the approach in the Frye
decision, rejecting the introduction of
polygraphs as evidence. Even the Jus-
tice Department, which objects to this
legislation, opposes the use of poly-
graph results in criminal trials.
But if the use of polygraphs is gen-
erally prohibited by our courts, does it
follow that employers should be
bound by the same rules? Not neces-
sarily. A personnel office is obviously
not a court of law.
However, I do not think that an em-
ployee has to leave his or her rights
outside the personnel office door,
either. Leaving aside the issues of ac-
curacy and admissibility for the
moment, what is the personal impact
of the polygraph exam?
I don't think there is any question
but that polygraphs are intimidating
and humiliating. And if they do not
actually violate an individual's rights
to speech, privacy, and freedom from
self-incrimination, they sure come
close. The fundamental principles of
the Constitution's first, fourth, and
fifth amendments are not advanced by
the polygraph-in fact, quite the oppo-
site. Yet 2 million people every year
are asked to take these tests.
I think all of us have been preaching
the virtues of cooperation between
labor and management. I know I have,
telling business and unions alike that
we cannot afford to waste our time,
energy, and resources on disputes, and
that we must work more as a team,
where risks and rewards are shared.
Do polygraphs have any place in this
drive for labor-management coopera-
March 12, 1986
tion? The question answers itself. Of
course they do not. A workplace run
on fear will run fearfully.
But let's bring the issue a little
closer to home. Suppose during your
reelection campaign this October, your
opponent asks you to take a poly-
graph. You know that it might be 90
percent accurate, or it might be right
only 60 percent of the time. Would
you take it? Or would you protest that
you had done nothing wrong? If you
would take it, then by all means
oppose this bill. If you wouldn't risk
your career on a 10- to 40-percent
chance of error, then don't ask 2 mil-
lion other Americans to take that
same risk.
I urge you to join me in opposing the
Young-Darden substitute and voting
for H.R.. 1524.
^ 1555
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Montana [Mr. WILLIAMS].
(Mr. WILLIAMS asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding this time to me.
My colleagues, this is not a bill to
ban the use of lie detectors in Amer-
ica. The purpose of this bill is to limit
the epidemic growth of lie detector,
polygraph, testing in the workplace.
The American Polygraph Association
estimates that last year more than 2
million lie detector tests were given.
By the way, that number of tests has
tripled-tripled-in just the past 10
years.
When Americans hear that last year
we gave 2 million lie detector tests,
they automatically assume that those
tests are being given by the FBI or the
CIA or your local police, but the fact
is that 98 percent of those 2 million
tests were given by private business,
and approximately three-quarters of
these tests are given for preemploy-
ment testing, while the other one-
fourth are used for investigations of
possible wrongdoing of workers.
This legislation is moderate. It does
not place a total ban on the use of lie
detectors. It does halt the epidemic
growth in them. The bill protects
workers who are wrongfully denied
employment and whose careers are
devastated based on the results of
these questionable tests. In fact, tens
of thousands of workers are wrongful-
ly denied employment every year, be-
cause of the demonstrated and inher-
ent inaccuracies of both these lie de-
tector gadgets and the people who op-
erate them.
Through the years, States have
made sporadic efforts to control the
use of this gadget. Today, 31 States
and the District of Columbia have
passed legislation affecting their use
in the private work force. However,
these separate laws have not proven
effective. In fact, they have, ironically,
given a false sense of security that the'
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
March 12, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
gadget works, and thus, once a State
regulates the gadget, the use of the
gadget explodes.
Often employers undermine State
law by pressuring employees and job
seekers into "volunteering" to take a
test even when the State law prohibits
requiring or requesting an examina-
tion. In States that completely ban
the use of lie detectors, employers may
avoid the law by hiring in a neighbor-
ing State which permits examination
and then transferring the employee
into the State where such testing is
prohibited. It is clear now that State
regulation has been perceived as a
"seal of approval" on the gadget, thus
resulting in the explosive, epidemic
rise to 20 million lie detector tests on
American citizens each year.
Our criminal justice system pre-
sumes that an individual is innocent
until proven guilty. The polygraph
abuses that principle because it re-
quires one to prove one's innocence.
The courts in this country refuse to
admit, in most instances, polygraph re-
sults as evidence in trials because of
the documented inaccuracies of these
gadgets and because they, in effect, re-
quire testifying against oneself.
Is it not sadly ironic, my colleagues,
that criminals are protected from
having to take the lie detector exami-
nation, but America's workers are not?
This bill is moderate. It does not ban
polygraphs. It fully respects the previ-
ous decisions of this Congress to allow
careful, limited, and specific use of lie
detectors by the Federal Government
in matters pertaining to our national
security and public health.
Likewise, this bill provides cautious
exemptions for those private business-
es that directly impact on our national
security or public health. We will be
accepting amendments to provide
other exemptions regarding dangerous
drugs, security guards, and the protec-
tion of electric and nuclear power-
plants and public transportation.
We will accept those amendments
because they are a matter of protect-
ing the national health and safety.
A bipartisan group of 168 Members
of the House have joined me in co-
sponsoring this legislation. A compan-
ion bill to H.R. 1524 has been intro-
duced in the Senate, S. 1815, by Chair-
man ORRIN HATCH and ranking
member Senator EDWARD KENNEDY.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. McKINNEY].
(Mr. McKINNEY asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McKINNEY. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, quite some time ago a
former colleague in this body left to
become the mayor of the city of New
York, and he handed me a bill, several
of them in fact. One of them was a bill
prohibiting the use of the polygraph
in private employment screening and
testing, and for private employees.
Since that time, the bill has led a
many-checkered life in this body and
is now in front of us, and I hope it
passes.
We are talking about a basic point of
civil rights when it comes to the poly-
graph. What amazes me is the fact
that we are talking about it at a time
when there is more and more doubt
cast upon the very efficacy of this
method of telling whether or not, in
fact, someone is lying.
We have private employers through-
out the country using the test in a way
that it was never meant to be used, to
find out the sexual proclivity, the mar-
ital status, the financial problems of
individuals, for which they have no
right to ask questions or to invade a
human being's privacy.
In this day and age this bill does not
just simply become a matter of the lie
detector and its ill use. It really be-
comes a matter of, sooner or later, we
have to stop through electronic meth-
ods violating the civil rights and the
privacy of the American citizens.
Almost every day that one picks up
the newspaper, there is another way
found to invade that human privacy;
there is another requirement set up.
And although I certainly am not going
to argue the condition of drug tests or
anything else, I am going to state that
it has been proven that the lie detec-
tor is not an accurate test.
We have the U.S. Department of
Justice, of all places, in 1976 testifying
versus the reliability of polygraph
tests. and recommending not using
polygraph evidence in criminal trials.
The President's Privacy Protection
Study Commission, established in 1974
under a Republican administration,
concluded that the use of polygraphs
is an unreasonable invasion of privacy
that should be proscribed. The Con-
gressional Office of Technology As-
sessment, in a 1983 study of the scien-
tific validity of polygraph testing, con-
cluded there is no scientific evidence
to establish the validity of polygraph
testing for screening a large number of
people.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, what
we are doing today is simply protect-
ing the American people within the
privacy of their lives from the inter-
ference of their employers. There is
nothing within this bill that affects
Federal employees. I wish it did. There
is nothing in this bill that affects
State employees. I wish it did. There is
nothing in this bill that will exempt
certain people from its protection if, in
fact, they work for the defense indus-
try or are contracted with by the De-
fense Department.
The bill is a basic, minimum state-
ment of private and individual privacy
and civil rights and deserves to pass. It
was interesting, Mr. Chairman, and it
may be interesting for the audience to
realize that on a television show a "lie
detector test" being given to someone
who had never had one before, who
was not asking for a single thing, who
had nothing to hide, and the questions
H 1035
were innocuous, that by tightening
certain muscles of the human body
they could send the machine into par-
oxysms of misreadings.
This is the machine we are talking
about, and to put people in fear of its
application, in fear of their livelihood
and job, in fear of their future rela-
tions with other people because of this
test, is to me a total, complete and ab-
solute violation of everything this
country stands for.
I urge my colleagues to support the
bill as passed out by the committee. It
is the minimum standard we can get
through to eliminate once and for all
the private, unspecific, uncontrolled
use of what I consider a machine that
is itself, the big liar.
^ 1605
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. GEPHARDT].
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman. I
rise today in support of H.R. 1524, a
measure which, in my opinion, is an
important step to ensure that tens of
thousands of workers are no longer
wrongfully denied employment.
Over the last 10 years, the number
of polygraph tests given in the work-
place has tripled to the point that now
more than 2 million tests are given
each year. Approximately three-quar-
ters of these tests are given for preem-
ployment purposes, while the other
one-quarter is used for the investiga-
tion of workers.
Unfortunately, the lie detector is an
unreliable instrument. In fact the
courts refuse to admit the results of
lie detector tests as evidence because
of the documented inaccuracies of
these gadgets. As Pat Williams pointed
out, "It is sadly ironic that criminals
are protected from polygraphs while
American workers are not!"
The bill doesn't totally ban the use
of lie detectors, but it does stem the
tide of their increasing use. The bill
protects workers who are wrongfully
denied employment by providing a
heightened threshold of worker pro-
tection which States may exceed but
may not fall below.
These inaccurate instruments simply
shouldn't be allowed to regulate the
workplace. The Office of Technology
Assessment in 1983 indicated there
was some evidence for polygraph valid-
ity in criminal investigations, but little
evidence of validity in screening situa-
tions, whether they be preemploy-
ment, preclearance, periodic or aperi-
odic, random or dragnet. In fact, the
agency said, error rates in preemploy-
ment polygraph screening could be as
high as 50 percent.
This is a bill whose time has come-
it deserves our support.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. GUNDERSON].
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
H 1036 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
(Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman,
as the ranking minority member on
the Employment Opportunities Sub-
committee which has jurisdiction over
this legislation. I have had the oppor-
tunity to attend all of the hearings, to
study the issue, and to try to arrive at
some conclusions. I am here to suggest
to you today that my conclusion is
perhaps one of frustration with all of
those options which have been pre-
sented before us.
I think if there is one tragedy in the
whole labor management area of the
99th Congress, it is that we have re-
sorted to the extremes, one extreme or
the other, whether it be plant closing
legislation or whether it be polygraph
legislation, or I suspect some other
similar bills which may come down
before this Congress in the future. We
have apparently decided to abandon
any efforts to achieve a reasonable
consensus or reasonable middle
ground.
I would like to suggest that there are
three different concepts that ought to
be considered when looking at this leg-
islation, and those would be the issues
of consistency, accuracy and discrimi-
nation.
First and foremost is the issue, of
consistency. The legislation before us
today, whether it be the bill from my
friend and distinguished colleague on
the committee, the gentleman from
Montana [Mr. WILLIAMS), or whether
it be the substitute that would be of-
fered, I think both lack in the area of
consistency. I have to tell you I have
real problems. I have real problems
going home to western Wisconsin and
saying to the people in my home town
of Osseo that the city clerk in that
small community of 1,500 people and
other city employees can all be re-
quired to take a lie detector test, but
no one in the private business sector in
town can use a similar means to deal
with potential crime. I have real prob-
lems with consistency that says it is
OK to use a polygraph, it is reliable
enough to use a polygraph for nation-
al security, but it is not a reliable
enough tool to use in the Ben Frank-
lin Store. That seems to me to be very
inconsistent, lacking some kind of con-
sistent public policy.
The second question is one of accu-
racy, because despite my concerns over
consistency, I have similar problems
with the accuracy of the polygraph as
an instrument. It is clear in study
after study that the polygraph is not a
reliable tool.
Let me quote for you just a second
from the committee report where it
says:
For more than 20 years the Congress has
been interested in the validity of these tests
and every study done since 1983 for the U.S.
Congress has found that there is no scientif-
ic basis for polygraphs as lie detectors.
The third issue that I bring to this
Congress is the whole issue of discrim-
ination, because I think we ought to
be concerned about discrimination
against potential employees. That is
exactly what happens when you use
the polygraph in the screening process
when it is an unreliable tool. But I
think also we must recognize when we
are looking at discrimination that if
our effort is one of eliminating dis-
crimination in employee screening,
that we then also ought to be in front
of this Congress today and in the well
of the House dealing with such issues
as the usual interviews, as written
tests and as references, because I
would suggest to you that all of those
three preemployment screening tools
discriminate in other ways, sometimes
just as much against a potential em-
ployee as does the polygraph.
Certainly tools such as the poly-
graph have a need in this country.
They are needed simply because when
you look at the realities of business
and industry in this country in the
high risk industries, they need to have
every possible opportunity to try to
deal with the potentials for theft and
fraud and abuse which occur.
Second, we must recognize that
there is something like $10 billion a
year in employee theft that occurs in
the United States retailing industry
alone. That is something that is a le-
gitimate concern of America's private
sector.
Third, in the area of drugs and con-
trolled substances, there are approxi-
mately 10,000 drug-related thefts a
year reported to the Drug Enforce-
ment Agency; 15 percent of those
which come from employee theft.
On the other hand, I think we need
to recognize that while there may be a
role and a need. for the polygraph,
there certainly are some major prob-
lems with the use of the polygraph.
The validity of the polygraph is abso-
lutely questioned I think by almost ev-
eryone. The little research which has
been done on its accuracy is inconclu-
sive, but that which is there would
suggest that clearly it is not a reliable
instrument.
We have problems with poorly
trained examiners. We have major
problems with irrelevant questions
that are being asked. Further, outside
factors such as stress, physical move-
ment, the type of individual tested,
length and depth of the test, and
training and prejudices of the examin-
er, to name a few, can substantially
affect the exam's results, particularly
in preemployment screening.
Mr. Chairman, what then is the proper role
of the Federal Government in providing a con-
sistent policy which is fair to the business but
at the same time protects current and pro-
spective workers from inaccuracies and sub-
sequent discrimination from faulty polygraph
exams? I do feel that the Federal Government
must do something to regulate and restrict the
use of such questionable tools; however, I am
concerned that an across-the-board ban of
polygraph testing in the private sector work
place as provided for in H.R. 1524 would
result in an unfair disadvantage for many pri-
March 12, 1986
vate employers. On the other hand, the regu-
latory approach as proposed by Representa-
tives YOUNG and DARDEN in H.R. 3916 would
not provide sufficient protection.
For this reason, I prepared a substitute to
H.R. 1524 that would uphold the provisions of
the bill which prohibit polygraph testing for
preemployment screening, and which would
prohibit periodic testing of current employees
for no identifiable cause. But, my substitute
would allow private employers to use the poly-
graph as an investigative tool in the event of
substantial employee theft, embezzlement,
misappropriation of funds, or industrial espio-
nage.
This substitute would also allow employers
to make use of the polygraph for investigative
purposes in the event that a crime has oc-
curred which threatens public safety or results
in substantial property damage. Retaining the
language in H.R. 1524 that would allow for
testing upon the theft or diversion of con-
trolled substances, my alternative measure
would also allow for preemployment screening
for those employees who would have access
to such controlled substances in their future
employment. Finally, the amendment would
exempt government agencies, public utilities
facilities, and security services companies
from the restrictions of the act-except for
certain basic employee protection provisions
that apply throughout.
There would however, be restrictions placed
upon polygraph testing as allowed by this sub-
stitute. No. 1, the use of the polygraph for in-
vestigative purposes would only be allowed if
such testing is consistent with applicable
State and local law and with any negotiated
collective bargaining agreement, that explicitly
or implicitly limits or prohibits the use of such
lie detector exams. Second, polygraph tests
would only be allowed to be administered to
employees who have had access to the
stolen property or to facilities, items, individ-
uals against which the crime occurred, or who
are under reasonable suspicion. Last, the
crime in question would have to be reported
to an appropriate law enforcement agency
before such polygraph testing would be al-
lowed.
Other provisions of my substitute include
certain protections for employees requested
to take polygraph examinations as provided
for under the act, such as restrictions on
questions to be asked, a provision that exa-
minees be provided copies of test results
upon request, and that future employment de-
cisions now be based solely on the results of
the polygraph exam. Penalties under this sub-
stitute would be the same as those provided
for under H.R. 1524 for violators of the act, al-
though, the substitute if enacted would not
preempt any State law which provides more
restrictive protections on polygraph testing.
Unfortunately, in discussing this approach
with my colleagues, I did not find that my sub-
stitute would meet with adequate support
during today's consideration of the polygraph
protection legislation to justify pursuit of its
passage. Therefore, I have decided against
offering it here today, although I continue to
feel this alternative to be preferable.
Studies prove that the polygraph is much
more accurate when used as an investigative
tool as opposed to an employment screening
mechanism. While this alternative would not
have totally banned the use of the polygraph
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
March 12, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 1037
in the private sector-it would have restricted
its use to that of an investigative tool-to be
used only when cause is shown.
Many proponents of preemployment and
less restrictive testing of current employees
may have argued that this approach would
be like "locking the barn door after the horse
has already gotten out," but I disagree. While
such testing would occur only after a theft or
other crime had occurred-the fact that it
would be an allowable tool-would have
seived to discourage employees from initially
indulging in crimes.
In closing, let me just remind everyone that
the majority of employees are very honest, up-
standing indivduals. I would still have con-
cerns over the use of the polygraph even
under the restricted circumstances provided
for under my proposed substitute due to the
test's questionable accuracy. However, this
approach would have provided businesses
with some form of protection against high
losses due to employee crime-another tool
that if used properly could have aided in pre-
vention of such activities, while still restricting
its use.
I continue to maintain that other forms of in-
vestigations and employee screening are
much preferable to the use of the polygraph
exam, this alternative would have just provid-
ed what I feel to be a more reasonable posi-
tion for the Federal Government to take in
protection against unfair polygraph examina-
tions in the workplace than is found under
H.R. 1524 or H.R. 3916.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. TRAFICANT].
Mr. TRAFICANT. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the time and the oppor-
tunity to speak out on this issue. I
want to start out by commending the
sponsor, the gentleman from Mon-
tana. Mr. PAT WILLIAMS, on his legisla-
tion and the intent and the content of
that legislation. Mr. Chairman, I com-
mend you also for bringing these
issues to the floor and fighting so hard
to maintain rights.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a conserva-
tive issue, this is not a liberal issue.
This Is not an employment issue, this
is not a, crime issue. This is a rights
issue.
If an individual in America was ac-
cused of murder, of killing four people,
and perhaps maybe even was seen
with a gun smoking in his hands, he
could hide behind his rights and
refuse to take a polygraph, and either
way that polygraph could not be used
against him. Imagine the American
people that have a 20-year-old daugh-
ter that is out to be hired for a job.
She is not accused of committing any
crime, but she has to go in and as one
of the employment screening devices
she is going to be subjected to a poly-
graph test.
My God, it is a wonder why we even
need this type of legislation to protect
rights when this administration is at-
tempting to turn back the clock. I
honest to God believe that this is not
necessary to vote on. This is a com-
monsense issue and a rights issue.
^ 1615
For all of those people out there
that are saying we must protect Amer-
ica's national security, be advised the
bill exempts all Government employ-
ers; Federal, State and local. Second of
all, it exempts any private contractor
doing business related to intelligence
or counterintelligence with either the
CIA, the National Security Agency, or
the FBI.
In addition, this bill allows the use
of lie detector tests by private contrac-
tors dealing with Defense Department
counterintelligence functions.
Finally, the bill also allows employ-
ers to administer a polygraph to any
employee with direct access to con-
trolled substances when those sub-
stances have been reported stolen to
the Drug Enforcement Administra-
tion.
Let me say one other thing: The
measure requires the Labor Depart-
ment to prepare, print and distribute
notices to employers on the protec-
tions that this act provides.
This act, this bill, makes the rights
of the average American in the work-
place more secure. It does not turn
back the clock. So when you hear all
of this debate, the American people
could recognize the fact that this is
not conservative versus liberal; this is
not Democrat versus Republican; this
is not an employment process; this is
not a crime process. This is a rights
issue, and that is what separates us
from the rest of the planet. Any other
person in any other government; they
do not enjoy those rights and we
cannot let precedent turn back that
clock.
So I am asking every Member here
to support Mr. WILLIAMS' bill, to have
an overwhelming vote for rights in
this country; and finally to oppose the
measure and the substitute being
brought by Darden-Young.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. LIVINGSTON].
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman,
after serving more than 8 years as a
prosecutor in Louisiana I have exten-
sive experience using the polygraph
exam. It proved to be a valuable inves-
tigative tool in my work as deputy
chief of the criminal division in the
U.S. attorney's office, as chief special
prosecutor for the local district attor-
ney's office, and as chief prosecutor
for the organized crime unit of the
Louisiana attorney general's office.
I voted with 332 of my colleagues in
favor of legislation introduced by BILL
YOUNG of Florida to expand the use of
polygraph testing by Federal inteli-
gence agencies so that they can better
protect opr national security. I believe
that it would be a terrible mistake for
the House to approve the use of the
polygraph for the Government while
prohibiting it for the private sector.
We've passed hundreds of bills re-
quiring business to protect the health
and welfare of their customers, and we
hold them liable in court if they don't.
But, if we pass H.R. 1524, what we are
really doing is stripping many busi-
nesses of an important tool they need
to protect the public.
For example, up to a million doses of
legal drugs vanish from drug company
inventories each year. These drugs
have the potential to kill or cripple
their users. By denying these compa-
nies the use of the polygraph you kill
a valuable tool they need to protect
their inventories from thieves. Child
care centers, nuclear facilities, and
banks are just a few examples of the
hundreds of other businesses that en-
trust their customer's health, welfare,
and resources to their employees.
These businesses need the polygraph
to help them hire honest, competent
people and to help find out when
thefts and abuses occur.
When a certain retailer in my dis-
trict stopped using his polygraph
screening process thefts went up so
dramatically that he was forced to
reinstitute it immediately. We all
know that the cost of employee and
customer theft in the retail business is
ultimately passed on to the consumer,
so a vote for this bill is a vote for
higher retail prices.
The polygraph's accuracy has been
shown in study after study to be be-
tween 85 to 95 percent. This is why we
want our intelligence gathering agen-
cies to use it. In Louisiana there were
numerous instances in which we used
the polygraph to help us in our crimi-
nal investigations.
In the space of 6 years during which
I served in law enforcement, I can
truthfully say that I never experi-
enced any doubt in then usefulness of
the polygraph. In fact, in several in-
stances charges were actually dropped
because of a defendant's performance
on a polygraph. So the polygraph not
only helps in catching crooks, but
often it clears innocent people.
For all of this, just as polygraph re-
sults are inadmissible as evidence in
court, I do not believe that employers
should use the test results as the sole
criterion in making a decision about
an employee. This is also the opinion
of most polygraph examiners and of
the American Polygraph Association.
It is in everyone's interest that poly-
graph results be as accurate as possi-
ble. In a number of States, Louisiana
among them, laws have been passed
which establish guidelines for training
and licensing of polygraph examiners,
set requirements for the equipment
used in the test, and institute protec-
tions for the rights of those taking the
exam. This is why I am a cosponsor of
H.R. 3916, introduced by Mr. YOUNG
and Mr. DARDEN, which will be offered
as a substitute to H.R. 1524.
Although I really fail to see any pur-
pose in the Federal Government's in-
volvement in this area at all, it would
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
H 1038 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 1.4 1986
be better to pass legislation modeled We should not confuse validity with thing that is not allowable in a court
on current State law requirements utility. There is no question that the of law. The crime? They want a job.
than to simply outlaw the use of the polygraph can be a very intimidating They could be intimidated, they could
polygraph in the private sector. I be- tool and may have some utility in that get nervous, they could be very subjec-
lieve that it is important that busi- regard, just as the dunking stool, the tive with regard to how they respond.
nesses cotitinue to have the tools they rack, and the firing squad have had in They could be put under pressure
need to protect the public's interests. past centuries. As former President about what their decisions would be
The polygraph is one of these tools, Nixon says about polygraphs, "I don't on some matters that have nothing to
and I urge the House to reject H.R. know how accurate they are, but I do do with the issue of honesty or crime
1524. know that they'll scare the hell out of or drugs, which are legitimate con-
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I people." cerns of employers, small business
yield myself such time as I may con- This elaborate con operation should men and women around the country.
sume to bring to the attention of the not be allowed to be institutionalized I think there has to be protection. I
body that the administration is op- as a feature of our Nation's workplace. have looked at this issue. I have wres-
posed to the substitute and to the bill. It is inherently offensive to American tled with the arguments made by my
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance concepts of justice. friends, some of whom are for and
of my time. Last month, the world's largest asso- some of whom are against, and I must
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I elation of psychologists condemned say that all of us want to do the right
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the widespread use of polygraph tests t ing. But I think it is important for
Texas [Mr. BROOKS]. . for screening purposes. The American the Members of this body to recognize
(Mr. BROOKS asked and was given Psychological Association concluded that there are very important issues at
permission to revise and extend his re- that conducting such tests by psy- stake. One is the civil liberties of the
marks.) chologists would be unethical. The American people and the working men
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise group found the scientific evidence re- and women of this country.
in strong support of H.R. 1524-the garding the validity of polygraphing
to be "unsatisfactory The participation that they have in
Employee Protection Act of 1985. This and particularly a lie detector test seems to me to be
bill will eliminate the widespread and poor concerning polygraph use in em- too much to ask them as a condition
growing use of so-called lie detector ployment screening." They recognized for employment.
tests as a condition of employment in the "great damage to the innocent
America. It will not block their use by persons who must inevitably be la- Now the bill does recognize the lim-
law enforcement agencies for actual beled as deceptors" in such screening ited need for the use of polygraphs for
investigations. Rather, it is aimed at situations. some investigatory purposes under
stopping the growing abuse of poly- We should not allow passing some controlled and reputable circum-
graph use when private employers bogus lie detector test to become a stances; it provides for an exemption
force their employees to take such condition of employment in this coun- from that ban for Federal, State, and
tests as a condition of employment try. I urge you to vote for H.R. 1524. local government, for businesses en-
e
even though they are neven sus- ^ 1625 gaged in Government contracts that
ev of any wrongdoing. not o This prac- relate to national security. But for the
pected n
tice is uassumes s every- I want to take this time to commend vast majority of employers, in my
to be un-American-it
one is
ery- the gentleman from Montana [Mr. view, passage of this legislation will
guilty until they prove vtheir
innocence. WILLIAMS] and his committee for their help protect the rights, the legitimate
My views on polygraphs have been outstanding work In bringing this leg- rights of the workers and those people
developed over myna years, a islation to the floor, backed up as they who are seeking work.
member of the mane Government were by substantial support from the I would urge a vote for this legisla-
member o Committee. This Republicans and from a bipartisan tion. It is not, nor is any legislation,
Operations
has overseen commit- staff that is truly outstanding. perfect, but as far as I am concerned,
Polygraph erseen n the Governmthe ent's
early Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I it is an important step in the right di-
1960 oly ape hp as strongly recommended yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from rection for both sides of the aisle to
's, and against the use of polygraphs for New York [Mr. KEMP]. join together in this way in order to
screening in the Federal Government Mr. KEMP. I thank the gentleman protect those very serious concerns
s four reports. for yielding. that we have about how this can be
Last year, the Office of Technology I thank my colleague from Vermont distorted, how it could be abused, and
and commend him and the gentleman how workers' rights would be denied
Assessment surveyed the scientific lit- from Montana [Mr. WILLIAMS] for them under the law.
erature on polygraph validity for the their work in bringing this bill, which
Government Operations Committee. I consider to be an important piece of entlThe CHAIRMAN. The t[MrMe K the
In its report, the OTA concluded that legislation, to the floor. There is no has from New York [Mr. EMP]
there was no scientifically acceptable doubt that there are many honest and has expired.
study to support the use of polygraphs well-meaning employers who see this Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
for screening purposes, and that any as a necessary mechanism by which to yield 30 additional seconds to the gen-
validity that the polygraph test may screen applicants for jobs, and investi- tleman from New York.
have for specific incident use would gate cases of wrongdoing. I do not Mr. KEMP. I thank the gentleman
likely decrease dramatically in a deny that. I think there are well- for yielding this additional time and
screening context. meaning men and women on both appreciate it, so that I may finish my
OTA found that coercing persons to sides of this issue, but there is a civil point.
take a polygraph test would affect va- rights consideration that has to be It is very clear that polygraphs
lidity negatively. By its nature, screen- made in this debate and it is one that I obtain no more accurate results than
ing as a condition of employment is feel compelled to make. if the administrator in some cases just
extremely coercive. We need to protect people from flipped a coin. Now we have to ask
Since OTA's study, many propo- polygraphs for obvious reasons. There ourselves: Is this what we want to de-
nents of polygraph use have backed are serious flaws with regard to their velop in our country? Would the con-
away from their claims of high poly- administration, there are problems ditions. for employment require that
graph validity. Instead, they argue the with the ability to detect veracity, and type of flippancy, if you will, that type
concept of utility. They point to nu- of the training and competency of the of denigration in some cases of the
merous instances when the polygraph polygraph examiner. rights of an individual, man or woman,
exam or the threat of the exam, has We protect criminals from poly- who is seeking employment or legiti-
been useful in eliciting important in- graphs. But yet some working men mately wants to carry out their rights
formation or even confessions. and women would be subject to some- under the free-enterprise system?
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
March 12, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 1039
Mr. Chairman, I urge a vote for the
Williams-Jeffords legislation and ap-
plaud their efforts and look forward to
participating in the rest of the debate.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support
of H.R. 1524, the Employee Polygraph Protec-
tion Act of 1985. This legislation is desparate-
ly needed to protect workers from the indis-
criminate use of polygraph testing which is
neither valid nor reliable.
Polygraph testing is used in employment
screening and "dragnet" searches for the dis-
honest on the theory that the polygraph is a
"lie detector." In point of fact, the polygraph is
simply one more stress detector which shares
the same problems of reliability and validity as
it early forebears. Earlier versions of the poly-
graph include medieval tests of guilt and inno-
cence such as the requirement that clergymen
who were charged with a crime swallow a
large piece of bread without water. This mild
version of the trial by ordeal was based on the
simple observation that when people are
frightened-under stress-the mouth would
go dry preventing the swallowing of dry bread.
Today, by using other measures of stress
such as heart rate, breathing, and perspira-
tion, the "trial by ordeal" takes on a scientific
gloss without ever having been able to pass
scientific muster. In point of fact, when poly-
graph results have been studied they have
been found wanting as was pointed out in the
1985 Office of Technical Assessment study
on polygraphs.
Given the lack of validity and reliability, why
then are polygraphs so appealing to employ-
ers? It would appear, in the fact of security
problems, that employers would rather trust a
machine rather than their own judgment.
Today, more than 30 percent of the Fortune
500 companies and half of the retail business-
es use polygraphs instead of, or in addition to,
reference checks. The results of polygraph
use have not justified its use. Employers who
do not use polygraphs have lower rates of
theft than those that do. This result would in-
dicate that preemployment reference checks
and sound inventory practices may be far
more effective in the control of theft.
Polygraphs are also used to gain informa-
tion which is not related to employment. Fre-
quently questions are asked about political
and social beliefs as well as sexual attitudes
and practices. Women have been subjected
to particularly repugnant questions of a sexual
nature. Although redress may be available
through legal action for such abuse, that is
small comfort to the women who have been
put in the humiliating position of having been
asked these questions in the first place.
The polygraph's general lack of validity and
reliability is enhanced when one is testing a
particularly sensitive or intelligent individual.
As noted in the OTA report:
Because exceptionally honest and intelli-
gent individuals may be highly reactive to
questions about their truthfulness, such de-
sirable employees will be misidentified at
higher rates than other less desirable em-
ployees.
In short, the polygraph will label as liars
those who are most truthful.
The polygraph appears to be an easy way
out for the employer who is faced with a secu-
rity problem. All of those graphs and wires
seem to indicate that something scientific is
going on. In reality, the polygraph is merely an
updated trial by ordeal with all of the faults of
the earlier versions. There is simply no short
cut to determining the truth. Employers are
faced, as they have always been, with the te-
dious task of checking references and making
judgments. I urge my colleagues to support
H.R. 1524 without weakening amendments.
Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, are we going to
be consistent this afternoon, or are we going
to create a double standard? Are we going to
allow individual businesses to use an investi-
gative tool which we require of the Depart-
ment of Defense, or are we going to tell those
businesses that this tool is off limits for them?
On June 26, 333 of us supported an
amendment to the Department of Defense au-
thorization bill where we directed the Penta-
gon to use random polygraph examinations to
screen Pentagon and contractor employees
with access to classified information.
In June we voted in favor of requiring this
polygraph testing and 9 months later we are
considering a vote against it!
What short memories we have!
How can we be so inconsistent?
The issue before us today is simple: Either
the polygraph is a valid tool or it is not.
According to the committee report-and I
quote-"the committee recognizes that cer-
tain employers should be exempted from the
provisions of this bill." The bill exempts those
involved in matters of national security and
those who have direct access to controlled
substances.
Now the question we need to ask ourselves
this afternoon is this:
"If the polygraph is an evil, unreliable tool,
as the advocates of this bill would have us be-
lieve, then why should anyone be exempted
from H.R. 1524 and be required to take a
polygraph?"
The answer, of course, is that it is a positive
tool. We recognized its merits with our over-
whelming vote in June and the committee tac-
itly admits them by providing for exemptions.
FBI statistics indicate that internal theft is
on the rise. Financial institutions in the United
States lost over $280 million in 1983 and over
$380 million in 1984. This is over nine times
the amount lost by robberies.
Your constituents and mine share the
burden of internal fraud and embezzlement.
Estimates place the increase in consumer
prices resulting from internal theft as high as
15 percent.
How can we justify passing this kind of price
increase on to the consumers in our districts
when there is an investigative tool available
which can help avoid it? Clearly it would be
bad public policy to eliminate an important in-
strument in the fight against these losses
when the problem is increasingly serious.
This bill places businesses in a catch-22 sit-
uation. Employers are held liable for the con-
duct of their employees and oftentimes re-
quired to pay astronomical judgments as a
result of litigation. Nevertheless H.R. 1524
denies them the use of a tool which will help
to ensure proper conduct.
The issue is best addressed by State regu-
lation-not Federal prohibition. A majority of
the States and the District of Columbia now
regulate the use of polygraphs in the work-
place, helping to assure their responsible use.
Licensing procedures and guidelines are ap-
propriate State functions, similar to licensing
doctors, real estate brokers, and lawyers.
There is no need for the Federal Government
to intervene where the States are already re-
sponsive.
Polygraph testing has limitations and should
not be the sole criterion for determining guilt
or innocence. Yet most law enforcement
methods, from fingerprinting to voice identifi-
cation, are also open to interpretation. The
extent and seriousness of the situation de-
mands that polygraph, one effective crime
prevention and detection tool, be available to
employers.
Recent incidents of child abuse at day care
centers only highlight the need for the use of
polygraph testing to protect children. I would
be very uncomfortable leaving my child at a
day care center which was legally prevented
from using the polygraph to screen out abu-
sive individuals.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is fundamen-
tally flawed.
It is inconsistent with prior action by the
Members of this House;
It is inconsistent with the tacit admissions of
the committee;
It closes its eye to the staggering problem
of internal theft;
It needlessly passes costs on to the con-
sumer;
It places employers in a no-win situation;
and
It needlessly interferes with State regula-
tions.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bad old bill and I
urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support
of H.R. 1524, the Employee Polygraph Protec-
tion Act. The bill provides the American
worker with important protection against an in-
vidious evil-the polygraph test.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the widespread use
of polygraphs for a simple reason, they don't
work. Polygraphs only measure physiological
response. It makes no claim to, and does not,
measure deception. Study after study has
concluded that the polygraph simply is not ac-
curate. When used for preemployment screen-
ing, polygraphs are particularly notorious.
Polygraph advocates say that the polygraph
has great utility, that it is a useful tool to root
out the truth. But Mr. Chairman, the bottom
line is that polygraphs cannot ascertain truth,
but serve only to coerce employees.
This bill makes certain exceptions for mat-
ters relating to drugs and national security.
These appear to be limited and reasonable
exceptions, based on testimony developed at
committee hearings.
Some of our colleagues, Mr. Chairman,
favor alternatives to this bill, where polygraphs
are limited to certain situations or are licensed
for use. The unreliability of the polygraph
makes these alternatives unacceptable. Poly-
graphs just don't work, and should not be
used as a device to deny employment oppor-
tunities.
Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to sup-
port this bill as a necessary measure to rid our
Nation of this modern day witchcraft.
Mr. DENNY SMITH. Mr. Chairman, today we
are considering legislation which will prevent
the use of polygraphs by employers in the pri-
vate sector. This is a very controversial issue,
and it does deserve the attention of this body.
But our goal should be insuring that the poly-
graph is not used indiscriminately by untrained
examiners for unwarranted purposes. Under
the guise of protecting the rights of individ-
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
H 1040 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 12, 1986
to hire the most qualified and dependable per- pills that have a market value of $17 and sell analyzer, psychological stress evaluator, or
sons, and the rights of the general public who them on the street for about $800 apiece. It is any other similar device which is used for
must ultimately pick u the costs of the purpose of detecting deception or verify-
P employee imperative for companies involved in the phar- ing the truth of statements; and
crime and negligence. maceutical industry, such as McKesson and (B) any interview of any employee or pro-
Crime in the workplace is not some fictitious Eli Lily, to have the opportunity to protect spective employee that uses any device re-
problem that is used as a justification by an themselves and the community from those ferred to in subparagraph (A) regardless of
employer who wants to violate an individual's who seek employment for the purpose of en- terms used in reporting to an employer the
constitutional rights. It is a real problem with gaging in illegal drug trade. The use of preem- findings, opinions, or statements made in or
real consequences for all of us. According to ployment polygraphs is vital to this effort. results of such exmination;
a recent study done of the banking industry, What we are saying if we pass H.R. 1524 is (4) the term 'polygraph examiner' means
over 80 percent of all losses incurred by that company officials do not have the same any person who conducts a polygraph exam-
banks around the country are a result of em- rights as their employees. An individual has a nation as defined in paragraph (3) of this
ployee theft. According to the Federal Bureau right to protect himself from an invasion of his sect)on; and
of
of Investigation, these losses amounted to privacy, but the (5) the term 'Secretary' means the Secre-
million in Ioaq and tga9 n,a i- in 1..- company does not have the
tart' of Labor.
stories over the past several months of many
officers of financial institutions pleading guilty
to involvement in "money laundering"
schemes often associated with organized
crime and drug trafficking.
Employee theft in the retail industry ac-
counts for millions of dollars worth of losses
every year. According to groups such as the
American Retail Federation, these thefts ac-
count for about 15 percent of the cost of all
items sold today. These are costs that are
borne directly by the consumer.
The use of illegal drugs has become a
major problem in the workplace. Time maga-
zine has made this issue its cover story for
this week because of its implications. Drugs
play a major role in both white and blue-collar
crime. In addition, it has lead to loss of lives
and property, especially in the transportation
industry. I'm sure every one of us have heard
the stories of truck drivers who have been in-
volved in accidents while on drugs. Recent
fatal railroad accidents in the United States
and Canada have been attributed to human
error as a result of drugs. Businesses have a
right to protect themselves from those people
who will not abide by company policy, thus
subjecting that company to increased costs
and the general public to increased risks.
This legislation would prevent multinational
companies such as airlines from conducting
preemployment polygraphs. Given the prob-
lems we now face with increased espionage
cases and terronsm, it seems ridiculous that
we would enact legislation which would pre-
vent these companies from taking the neces-
sary steps to protect American interests.
This body was so concerned with the espio-
nage issue that just a few weeks ago we
passed legislation which would increase the
use of polygraphs by the Department of De-
fense and defense-related industries. This leg-
islation passed by almost a 5-to-1 margin in
the House. At that time, there was no argu-
ment about the veracity of the process or the
need for it. Polygraphs were an acceptable
way to guarantee our national security. What
has changed in the past few weeks that
makes us differentiate between certain indus-
tries and certain sectors of the economy? We
are quick to point out the risks and take nec-
essary precautions when our national interests
are at stake. Isn't protection from crime a na-
tional interest?
I received a call from Bruce Bascom of the
McKesson Drug Co. In Wilsonville, OR, yester-
day. He expressed his concern about what
the loss of polygraph requirements would do
in his industry. I'm sure everyone is aware of
the many precautions taken by these compa-
ing for the job could cause potential harm to
the business or the community.
Polygraphs are a useful and necessary tool
in the business community. No one is claiming
that they are 100 percent accurate, but by the
same token, they are no less reliable than in-
dividual interviews. Polygraphs cannot, and
should not, be the sole justification for the
hiring or firing of an employees. But a profes-
sionally administered polygraph exam will
insure that everyone's rights are protected-
employee, employer, and the general public.
Mr. JEFFORD,S. Mr. Chairman, I
have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the
rule, the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute now printed in
the reported bill shall be considered as
an original bill for the purpose of
amendment, and each section shall be
considered as having been read.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Employee
Polygraph Protection Act of 1985."
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
OFFERED BY MR. YOUNG OF FLORIDA
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a sub-
stitute offered by Mr. YOUNG of Flori-
da:
Strike out all after the enacting clause
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the 'Polygraph Reform
Act of 1985'.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 2. For the purposes of this Act-
(1) the term 'commerce' has the meaning
provided by section 3(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 203(b));
(2) the term 'employer' has the same
meaning as-
(A) such term is defined in section 2(2) of
the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
152(2)); and
(B) the term 'carrier' is defined in section
1 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151);
(3) the term 'polygraph examination'
means-
FINDINGS AND PURPOSE
Sze. 3. (a) The Congress finds that-
(1) the improper use of polygraph exami-
nations in work situations in industries en-
gaged in interstate commerce imposes a sub-
stantial burden on interstate commerce
through loss of employment and employ-
ment opportunities; and
(2) the free flow of goods and services in
interstate commerce is burdened by theft,
dishonesty, and breaches of trust by dishon-
est employees and by crimes committed
against employees, customers, and the
public.
(b) The purposes of this Act are to-
(1) establish minimum standards for the
use of polygraphs in employment;
(2) encourage the States and political sub-
divisions thereof to administer such stand-
ards in accordance with the policies of this
Act;
(3) provide relief for the improper use of
polygraphs; and
(4) provide for Federal oversight of the
administration of such standards.
PROHIBITION OF POLYGRAPH TESTING NOT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH MINIMUM STANDARDS
SEC. 4. No employer may take any action
affecting the employment status of an em-
ployee or prospective employee, if such
action is based on the results of a polygraph
examination of such employee or prospec-
tive employee that has not been adminis-
tered in accordance with sections 5 and 6 of
this Act.
RIGHTS OF POLYGRAPH EXAMINEE
SEC. 5. (a) Each prospective examinee
shall sign a notification prior to any poly-
graph examination which states that-
(1) such examinee is consenting voluntari-
ly to take the examination;
(2) the polygraph examiner may not in-
quire into-
(A) religious beliefs or affiliations;
(B) beliefs or opinions regarding racial
matters;
(C) political beliefs or affiliations;
(D) sexual preferences or activities, unless
necessary to determine the qualifications of
the employee to be employed (1) by a nurs-
ing home, rest home, sanitarium, hospital,
day nursery or similar child care facility, or
such other institution or service in which
the well-being of children, the aged, handi-
capped, or infirm are entrusted to the care
of the employees of such institutions or
services, or (2) by an employer providing
services in the residence of the employer's
customers; or
(E) beliefs, affiliations, or opinions regard-
ing unions or labor organizations;
(3) such examinee may terminate the ex-
amination at any time;
(4) such examinee shall be provided with a
written copy of any opinions or conclusions
rendered as a result of the examination
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
March 12, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 1041
upon written request and payment of a rea-
sonable fee by such examinee;
(5) the polygraph examiner is prohibited
from asking the examinee any question
during the examination that is not in writ-
ing and was not reviewed with the examinee
prior to the examination;
(6) such examinee has specific legal rights
and remedies if the polygraph examination
is not conducted in accordance with the pro-
visions of this Act; and
(7) such examinee may receive a copy of
the notification upon written request.
(b) Upon written request from an examin-
ee, a polygraph examiner shall provide a
signed copy of all opinions or conclusions of
a polygraph examination rendered in ac-
cordance with section 6 of this Act.
(c) No action may be taken by an employ-
er regarding the employment status of an
employee or an applicant for employment
that is based solely on opinions or conclu-
sions of a polygraph examiner reached by
analysis of a polygraph chart.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued to apply with respect to a polygraph
examination conducted by, or at the direc-
tion of, the United States in accordance
with otherwise applicable Federal law.
MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR POLYGRAPH
EXAMINATIONS
SEC. 6. (a) A polygraph examination may
be conducted only by a person who-
(1) is at least twenty-one years of age;
(2) is a citizen of the United States;
(3) is a person of good moral character;
(4) it. in compliance with all laws, rules,
and regulations of any appropriate State or
local government authority governing the
use of polygraphs; and
(5)(A) holds a baccalaureate degree from
an accredited college or university and has
successfully completed a formal training
course in the use of polygraphs that has
been approved by the Secretary; and
(B) has completed a polygraph examiner
internship of at least six months in duration
under the direct supervision of a polygraph
examiner who has met the requirements of
this section.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraph (5) of subsection (a), a person
shall be permitted to conduct a polygraph
examination in accordance with the provi-
sions of this Act, if such person-
(1) has met the requirements of para-
graphs (1) through (4) of subsection (a); and
(2)(A) on the date of enactment of this
Act, holds a valid polygraph examiner li-
cense issued by a licensing authority of a
State or political subdivision thereof; or
(B)(i) within a period of five years imme-
diately preceding the date of enactment of
this Act, has conducted not less than two
hundred polygraph examinations; and
(ii) within one year after the date of en-
actment of this Act, has satisfactorily com-
pleted a formal training course in the ad-
ministration of polygraph examinations ap-
proved by the Secretary.
(c) All examiners meeting the require-
ments of subsections (a) and (b) of this sec-
tion shall be required every twenty-four
months to complete not less than twenty-
four hours of continuing education ap-
proved by the Secretary regarding the use
of polygraphs.
(d) A polygraph examiner may not ask a
question during a polygraph examination,
unless such question is in writing and has
been reviewed with the examinee prior to
such examination.
(e) A polygraph examiner may not inquire
into-
(1) religious beliefs or affiliations;
(2) beliefs or opinions regarding racial
matters;
(3) political beliefs or affiliations;
(4) sexual preferences or activities, unless
necessary to determine the qualifications of
the employee to be employed by (1) a nurs-
ing home, rest home, sanitarium, hospital,
day nursery or similar child care facility, or
such other institution or service in which
the wellbeing of children, the aged, handi-
capped, or infirm are entrusted to the care
of the employees of such institutions or
services or (2) by an employer providing
services in the residence of the employer's
customers; and
(5) beliefs, affiliations, or opinions regard-
ing unions or labor organizations.
(f) A polygraph examiner may not per-
form more than twelve polygraph examina-
tions in any twenty-four hour period.
(g) (1) A polygraph examiner shall-
(A) use an instrument which records con-
tinuously, visually, permanently, and simul-
taneously changes in cardiovascular, respi-
ratory, and galvanic skin response patterns
as minimum instrumentation standards; and
(B) base an opinion of truthfulness upon
changes in physiological activity or reactiv-
ity in the cardiovascular, respiratory, and
galvanic skin response patterns.
(2) A polygraph examiner may use an in-
strument which records additional physio-
logical patterns as measured in paragraph
(1) and may consider such additional pat-
terns in rendering an opinion.
(h) All conclusions or opinions of the poly-
graph examiner arising from the polygraph
examination shall-
(1) be in writing and based only on poly-
graph chart analysis;
(2) contain no information other than ad-
missions, information, and interpretation of
the chart data relevant to the purpose and
stated objectives of the examination; and
(3) contain no recommendation regarding
the prospective or continued employment of
an examinee.
(1) A polygraph examiner shall maintain
all opinions, reports, charts, questions lists,
and all other records relating to the poly-
graph examination for a minimum of two
years after administering such examination.
"(j) Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued to apply to a polygraph examiner
employed by the United States, or conduct-
ing a polygraph examination at the direc-
tion of the United States in accordance with
otherwise applicable Federal law."
CERTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PLANS
SEC. 7. (a) Any State or political subdivi-
sion thereof which desires to develop and
enforce standards for the use of polygraphs
by employers and polygraph examiners may
submit an administrative plan to the Secre-
tary at such times, in such manner, and con-
taining or accompanied by such information
as the Secretary may reasonably require.
Such plan shall-
(1) identify any agency designated as re-
sponsible for administering the plan;
(2) describe the standards in the adminis-
trative plan governing polygraph examiners
and the use of polygraph examinations;
(3) provide assurances through a written
certification that such standards and the
enforcement of such standards, shall be at
least as effective as the standards set out in
this Act; and
(4) explain the manner in which the
standards in such plan are administered and
enforced by such agency to assure compli-
ance with this Act.
(b) An administrative plan providing ade-
quate assurances and meeting the require-
ments of subsection (a) shall be deemed ap-
proved by the Secretary.
(c) The Secretary shall make a continuing
evaluation of each administrative plan
which has been approved. If the Secretary
finds that a plan is not being administered
in a manner that assures substantial compli-
ance with the standards of this Act, the Sec-
retary shall notify the State or political sub-
division thereof of the withdrawal of ap-
proval of such plan and, upon receipt of
such notice, such plan shall cease to be in
effect.
(d) Review of a decision of the Secretary
to withdraw approval of an administrative
plan under this section may be obtained in
the United States court of appeals for the
circuit in which the State or political subdi-
vision thereof is located by filing a petition
for review with such court within thirty
days after receipt of the notice of withdraw-
al of approval.
CERTIFICATION OF POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS
SEC. 8. (a)(1) No person may conduct poly-
graph examinations, unless such person has
certified to the Secretary that he is con-
ducting such examinations in compliance
with sections 5 and 6 of this Act and is in
compliance with rules and regulations
issued by the Secretary pursuant to section
12 of this Act.
(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) shall
not apply if such person has met the re-
quirements of an administrative plan adopt-
ed pursuant to section 7 of this Act.
(b) The Secretary shall make a continuing
evaluation of each certification required by
subsection (a) of this section. If the Secre-
tary finds that a person is not in compliance
with the provisions of sections 5, 6, and 7 of
this Act, the Secretary shall notify the
person of the revocation of certification
and, upon receipt of such notice, such
person may not conduct polygraph exami-
nations.
(c) Review of a decision of the Secretary
to revoke a certification under this section
may be obtained in the United States dis-
trict court in the district in which the
person resides or has a principal place of
business by filing a petition for review with
such court within thirty days after receipt
of the notice of revocation of certification.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued to apply to a polygraph examiner
employed by the United States, or conduct-
ing a polygraph examination at the direc-
tion of the United States in accordance with
otherwise applicable Federal law.
DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
SEC. 9. (a) A person other than an examin-
ee may not disclose information obtained
during a polygraph examination, except as
provided in this section.
(b) A polygraph examiner, polygraph
trainee, or employee of a polygraph examin-
er may disclose information acquired from a
polygraph examination only to-
(1) another polygraph examiner in private
consultation, the examinee or any other
person specifically designated in writing by
the examinee; and
(2) the person or governmental agency
that requested the examination or others
required by due process of law.
(c) An employer for whom a polygraph ex-
amination is conducted may disclose infor-
mation from the examination only to a
person described in subsection (b).
(d) Nothing in this section prohibits the
disclosure of information obtained during a
polygraph examination to a federal law en-
forcement agency or intelligence agency in
accordance with otherwise applicable Feder-
al law or to prohibit subsequent redisclosure
by such an agency in accordance with such
law.
WAIVER OF RIGHTS PROHIBITED
SEC. 10. The rights and procedures provid-
ed pursuant to this Act may not be waived
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
H 1042 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
by contract or otherwise. No polygraph ex-
aminer may request an examinee to waive
any such right or procedure.
NOTICE OF PROTECTION
Sac. 11. The Secretary shall prepare and
print a notice setting forth information nec-
essary to effectuate the purposes of this
Act. Such notice shall be posted at all times
in conspicuous places upon the premises of
every employer engaged in any business in
or affecting interstate commerce.
AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY
SEc. 12. The Secretary shall-
(1) issue such rules and regulations as may
be necessary or appropriate for carrying out
this Act;
(2) cooperate with regional, State, local,
and other agencies, and cooperate with and
furnish technical assistance to employers,
labor organizations, and employment agen-
cies to carry out the purposes of this Act;
and
(3) make investigations and inspections
and require the keeping of records neces-
sary ahd appropriate for the administration
of this Act.
CIVIL PENALTIES
Ssc. 13. (a) Subject to the provisions of
subsection (b) of this section, whoever vio-
lates this Act may be assessed a civil penalty
of not more than $10,000 by the Secretary.
(b) In determining the amount of any pen-
alty under subsection (a) of this section, the
Secretary shall consider the previous record
of the person in complying with the Act and
the gravity of the violation
RELIEF
SEC. 14. (a) Any person who is given a
polygraph examination in violation of this
Act may bring a civil action against the
polygraph examiner in the United States
district court in the district in which the al-
leged violation occurred or in which the ex-
aminer has its principal office.
(b) Upon a finding of a violation of this
section, such court may grant appropriate
relief, including the imposition of a civil fine
of not more than $10,000.
(c) In addition to the relief provided in
subsections (a) and (b) of this section, an
employee or prospective employee seeking
relief from a violation of this Act in a juris-
diction in which the certification require-
ments of section 7 of this Act have not been
complied with, shall be provided relief in ac-
cordance with the provisions of sections
11(b). 16. and 17 of the Fair Labor Stand-
ards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 211(b), 216, and
217). Amounts owing to a person as a result
of a violation of this Act shall be deemed to
be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid over-
time compensation for purposes of sections
16 and 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216 and 217).
(d) The remedies provided by this Act
shall be exclusive and may not be construed
to permit a cause of action by an examinee
against any party other than an employer, a
prospective employer, or a polygraph exam-
iner.
(e) If a State or political subdivision there-
of is in compliance with section 7 of this
Act, any person seeking relief under this
section must first exhaust the remedies of
the administrative plan of the State or po-
litical subdivision thereof.
EFFECTIVE DATE
Sac. 15. This Act shall take effect one year
after the date of enactment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the
reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unani-
mous consent that the amendment in
the nature of a substitute be consid-
ered as read and printed in the
RECORD, inasmuch as it has been previ-
ously printed in the RECORD and copies
have been made available to the inter-
ested parties.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. YOUNG
of Florida was allowed to proceed for 5
additional minutes.)
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the
chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to
my colleagues I have been here on the
floor and have heard the debate from
the very beginning this afternoon. I
would like to compliment all those
who participated in the debate and
presented what I think is a reasonable
and logical debate.
I offer this amendment in the
nature of a substitute for myself, as
the author of the amendment last
June which provided polygraph serv-
ices for our national security efforts,
and for my friend and colleague from
Georgia, Mr. DARDEN, who is a distin-
guished Member of the House of Rep-
resentatives and who also served, in a
former life, as a prosecuting attorney
with great exposure to the use of poly-
graph.
Mr. Chairman, the substitute does
not prohibit the use of polygraphs.
H.R. 1524, however, originally set out
to prohibit the use of polygraphs. But
in committee they adopted several
amendments that exempted certain
types of industry as well as govern-
ment. It is my understanding on the
floor later today they have agreed to
accept additional amendments that
would provide additional exemptions
to the prohibition that H.R. 1524
would bring to the use of polygraphs.
Mr. DARDEx and I suggest a different
approach. We agree,, for example, with
those speakers who have made the
point that this is really a rights issue-
the right of the employee. We agree
with that. We would say to you, Mr.
Chairman, that our substitute is the
only legislation before the House that
actually provides a "bill of rights" for
those people who might be examined
during the seeking of employment. We
actually provide in the law a bill of
rights for those employees and pro-
spective employees who would be sub-
ject to the polygraph.
Mr. Chairman, it has also been sug-
gested that this is a way to get at the
guilty, that we are looking to prove
someone guilty before they have been
given a chance to prove they are inno-
cent.
In some cases that may be the case.
For example we know from the
Walker spy case, that instigated the
amendment last June on the national
defense bill, that the authority to use
the polygraph was asked for consist-
ently by those in naval intelligence
who told us it would be one of the best
tools they could to deter espionage
against our Nation. So we know, it is a
good tool. By itself it is not a total
tool, it is only part of an overall effort.
March 12, 1986
There is more to our substitute.
Our approach also protects the inno-
cent. Yes, we are looking for the
guilty, but we are also seeking to pro-
tect the innocent and ours is the only
approach on the floor today that actu-
ally will bring protection for the inno-
cent.
I would like to give you an example:
Back in Florida I have a good friend
who owns a number of drug stores. He
began to find narcotics and controlled
substances missing from his ware-
houses and his shelves and he could
not determine who was stealing the
substances. So he considered firing ev-
eryone in his business who had access
to those drugs and those controlled
substances.
Now that really would not have been
fair because it was subsequently
proved that all of the employees were
not involved in the theft-just one. So
instead of firing all of the innocent
people, he decided to employ a poly-
graph examiner. Through the use of a
polygraph examination, and through
the extended investigation based on
the results of the polygraph examina-
tion, he determined who the guility
party was.
^ 1640
The guilty party admitted it, and the
guilty party was terminated. He lost
his job, but innocent people were al-
lowed to keep their jobs.
We think that the innocent should
be protected, and we believe that we
can protect them under the substitute
that Mr. DARDEN and I offer today.
The reason we believe our approach
protects the innocent and does the job
that is required in 'private industry is
that our substitute provides for mini-
mum professional stardards for poly-
graph examiners. One of the speakers
earlier today said that many people in
our country believe that any time
there is a polygraph examination, it is
given by the CIA or it is given by the
FBI or it is given by a police agency.
They made the point that that is not
true, because many polygraph exami-
nations are given by people who are
not nearly as professional as those
who give them for the Department of
Defense. We agree with that. That is
the basis of our approach.
We are asking for a Federal law that
would establish certain stiff profes-
sional requirements before a person
would be permitted to give polygraph
examinations and, at the same time,
we provide a bill of rights I mentioned
earlier for those who might be re-
quired to take that polygraph exami-
nation.
We do not want to do what Mr. JACK
BROOKS mentioned earlier, that is to
go back to the days of the dunking
tool. We do not want to use the dunk-
ing tool any more than the gentleman
from Texas does. That is why we are
trying to make sure that those people
who give polygraph examinations are
not the dunking tool professionals. We
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
March 12, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 1043
seek to ensure that they are able to do when the polygraph system is used, The Congressional Research Service
the job in a professional manner, that that the cost of employee theft goes reports that the substitute would
they have had the proper education, down from 15 percent to about 1 per- create a patchwork quilt of regulations
and that they have had the proper cent of the price of goods. We have a with the possibility of adjacent States
training. communication from the manager of having Federal, State, city, or county
Mr. Chairman, in addition, this is a Days Inn, a motel chain. Before Days regulations.
States' right issue. It was mentioned Inn used the polygraph, they had The substitute claims that the pro-
earlier in debate, that some 31 States losses of over $1 million a year. When spective or current employees can vol-
have already enacted polygraph legis- they went to the use of a polygraph, unteer to take the lie detector test.
lation. We would like to encourage the those losses dropped to just over How is it voluntary when employers
States to take the lead-and if any $100,000 a year, a reduction of some 85 require the test as a condition of em-
State would like to go further than we percent. That means that the cost of ployment? Whenever State legisla-
go in the Federal law, in the proposal that theft was reduced and did not tures have blessed the lie detector by
that Mr. DARDEN and I make, they are have to be passed on to consumers. passing regulatory legislation, the use
permitted to do so. In fact, if a State I have a letter, a case file of a televi- of this gadget has skyrocketed.
decided to ban polygraph altogether, sion repair man who was interviewed Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition
they could do so under the substitute for his job and denied ever being con- to this, and I want to alert the Mem-
that we offer today. victed of a crime. He denied any bers that when we vote on this bill, we
It has been suggested that the poly- former problems of that type. He went are voting on the substitute on the
graph is not a reliable tool. I would out on a call from his employer and he next vote, not the Williams bill.
say that if we are going to rely only on sexually molested two small children. Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I
the polygraph, only on that tool, that The records are full of this type of move to strike the last word.
I would have to agree. But it is only thing. They are also full of cases (Mr. DARDEN asked and was given
part of an overall investigative capabil- where innocent people have been pro- permission to revise and extend his re-
ity. tected by the polygraph. But In this marks.)
For example, in the Walker spy case case, the repairman had in previous Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
that I mentioned, one of the Walker employment been convicted of sexual today along with the gentleman from
family denied any implication whatso- molestation a number of times. Had he Florida to introduce and support the
ever in that spy case where they were been polygraphed. that might have substitute which offers protection for
giving classified information to the So- been found. consumers and employees through rig-
viets. But after he was confronted I do not use this as some kind of a orous, but fair, regulation of poly-
with the results of a polygraph exami- scare tactic. I am just trying to give graph use in the private sector.
nation that indicated there was some examples of the fact, that yes, the Mr. Chairman, I want to take a
problem in his responses to the ques- polygraph does work. We can provide moment, however, to commend the
tions, he finally confessed. He con- many additional examples of how the chairman, and also the sponsor, the
fessed that he had been lying; that he innocence of people has been protect- crom Montana, for soingihe
was involved in divulging national se- ed by the polygraph. gentleman hentcritical an issue to the floor in ng
curity secrets to the Soviets; and that Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I Htheir ouse. I certainly agree with them
he went on to give us additional infor- rise in opposition to the substittue. that might have a different em
mation that was used in the case Mr. Chairman, according to the tes- that we to solve the problem but I
against the Walkers. We suggest that timony from representatives of private think it to
one of national urgency. I
the people of the United States de- industry before my subcommittee, it want t commend onof them for taking the
serve that kind of protection, not only was testified it would not be a part of want
and bt forward. While we
for national security issues, but also an investigation, but it would be the lead the g methods forward.
would be
for private business. only tool used to determine guilt. disagree n bringing r saappreciate their courage be
As the sponsor of the bill, H.R. 1524, Therein lie the fallacy of the argu- used, I afappre with this very courage in
has suggested, he is going to exempt ments by the gentleman in favor of coming fofrom his legislation some industries. the substitute. cant legislation.
I said before, I disagree with
methods gs being before, H. a with
So, in effect, what the gentleman is The situation is this. I do believe But
saying is that polygraph is OK here in that there should be standards in the d ban
ban
one area but not another. Well, my which we determine who is qualified What use of the 1524 does polygraph is b b theasically private
suggestion Is if it is OK here, it should to become polygraph examiners. But I sector.
also be OK over here, if it is done in a believe those standards should be na- Oh, sure, let us have a few excep-
The fashion. tional and not just left up to the op- a few exemptions. Let us let the
The cost to the American consumer tions of the individual States, where tires pindustry out. Let Let let let
from internal theft is estimated to be we already know what practices are nuclear with let
$40 billion each and every year. That that where polygraphs are not al- out ,ut people power who are involved security.
means in the case of most retailers, lowed, employers will transport citi-tional that about 10 to 15 percent of the cost zens to areas where they are allowed, ^ 1650
of their clothes that they sell, the give the polygraph test, and then Government
shoes that they sell, the food that bring them back. Let workers; let leave a out ut all all the entire us exclude
they sell, the furniture, the household So I would assume that if it was al- transportation ilet us only
items, whatever they sell, whatever lowed the way the substitute describ- tran the businessmen ly
United beurd en industry;
your constituents go out to buy at a eds that States that had lesser qualifi- put s the this
States.
store at any given time, 10 to 15 per- cations for polygraph examiners, Members now
cent of that cost is due to internal where the polygraph regulations were I this phrase e now
theft. looser, the employers would do the that am m we have saying all to the heard
Mr. Chairman, I think that is a terri- same thing and move the employees to Washington recently, which goes
ble tax. If we came here to the floor those areas. something like this: I am for tax
today asking to add a 10 percent or a Let me tell you another couple of reform but. Now everybody is saying: I
15-percent sales tax on all of those reasons why I and the committee do not think we ought to use the poly-
goods, I think there would be a revolu- oppose the substitute. The Congres- graph but.
tion in the House. I do not believe we sional Budget Office reports that the Everybody wants their specific little
would ever pass that kind of a bill. But substitute will cost the Government $2 exception or exemption.
because of internal theft, the prices million. Do we really want to spend $2 So what I am saying to the Members
are increased from 10 to 15 percent. million to put the congressional good today is that if polygraphs are a sham
We have to stop that, and it can be housekeeping seal of approval on this and a farce and a device which cannot
stopped. We have proof positive that gadget? be depended upon, why not use this
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
H 1044 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 12, 1986
vehicle, this legislation here today, to So let me say, in conclusion, vote for quire into political beliefs or affili-
ban their use entirely from use in the substitute and against the bill. ations, he may not inquire into sexual
America today? Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I preferences or activities unless-and
The distinguished chairman of the move to strike the requisite number of this is a very important exception-
Committee on Government Oper- words, and I rise in support of the sub- unless it Is necessary to determine the
ations was up a few moments ago stitute. qualifications of the employee to be
saying, in very touching terms, his (Mr. BARTLETT asked and was employed by a nursing home, where so
feelings for the protection of the given permission to revise and extend many of our elderly Americans spend
rights of people who are being protect- his remarks.) the rest of their lives, a rest home, a
ed by this act. Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I sanitarium, a hospital, or a day-care
Why not extend the same protection rise in strong support of the substitute nursery.
to Government employees? If the that is offered by the gentleman from So in those cases where we have a
polygraph does not work in the private Florida and by the gentleman from right and an obligation to protect
sector, it sure does not work in the Georgia. I rise to support the substi- senior citizens or children in those in-
public sector. tute and to oppose the bill. stitutions, those type of questions
Let me, basically, go through what It seems to me that there are some would be.permitted.
this substitute does. As a former dis- essential differences between the bill Mr. BARTLETT I would ask the
trict attorney, incidentally, I have that is before us and the substitute gentleman, further, as I understand
come to rely on the polygraph as a that is offered. It seems to me that the the intent of the gentleman's substi-
very reliable investigative tool. As a essential difference is that the bill tute is to say that the polygraph, then,
defense counsel, I used it not to indi- would prohibit the use of the poly- could not be used as a sole criteria but
cate guilt but, in many instances, to graph in virtually all circumstances in merely as one additional tool.
exonerate persons who where wrong- the private sector, and the bill that So does the gentleman have a prohi-
fully charged with a crime. the two gentleman have constructed bition that no one could lose their fob
I would point out to the Members, and are proposing as a substitute based solely on a polygraph test?
when it is said that the polygraph is would permit the polygraph to be used
subject to some degree of failure, that to protect employees' rights and man an Mr. of makes a YOUNG very e y v v alid alid The atvatvanon,
it is not perfect; I submit that it is not permit the polygraph to be used as o That is However, our criminal justice one tool, not the -sole tool-it would and I thank law him for is that That is poly
rect. -
the poly-
system is not perfect. The House of prohibit that. It would permit it to be graph ur not be the sole determining
Representatives in which we stand used as one tool but not the sole tool. grapwill not er pee that that the ex-
today is not perfect. I also tell you I think what the gentleman from factor. It may at any provides
time terminate the there are more people in the prisons Florida has done with his substitute is polygr h e a time tfter the the
of America wrongfully convicted on to acknowledge the need from time to polygraph examinatfirst ion, after oon first
mistaken eye witness testimony, than time that the polygraph be used to way sentence, after the examination, ,half-
for any other purpose, protect the employees, it is to create hthrough may terminate t and
So, sure, polygraphs are not perfect; minimum standards that States then wherever. He may trminat it ante
but they are a reliable tool. can and sometimes do adopt and say denied he e could employment lose bstrictly his be jeb or be
We do two things in this substitute. that the polygraph cannot be used as dentcause of
One is that we impose minimum the sole test but can be used as one that.
standards on the examiner to be sure test. theMr. question that, BARn that, And I would ask
that he can properly be trained to do I would like to yield to the gentle- as I understand it,
his job. The requirements are listed in man from Florida [Mr. Yotmo] to clar- the person being examined could
the substitute. ify some of the things that are in this obtain a written copy of all the ques-
The second thing we do, which I very well-crafted piece of legislation tions and his responses, merely for
think is very important, is that we pro- that does precisely what needs to be asking?
hibit the employer from using the done to protect employee rights. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Exactly.
polygraph as the sole purpose for As I understand, and I would ask the Mr. BARTLETT. Are there penalties
which a person can be denied employ- gentleman, under his legislation, the provided in the gentleman's substitute
ment or fired. You have got to have substitute polygraph bill, the poly- if an examiner violates the legislation?
other evidence. And, also, it has a bill graph examiners must meet specific Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes. We
of rights in here which prevents any requirements. Could the gentleman provide in this substitute that the ex-
individual from being asked about elaborate on some of those require- aminee who feels his rights have been
matters of a personal nature, sexual ments? violated may file an action in Federal
matters, matters having to do with Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gen- court, and the fine would be up to
that person's union affiliation or polit- tleman will yield, I appreciate the gen- $10,000.
ical beliefs. tleman's comments. He is exactly Mr. BARTLETT. I thank the gentle-
So this substitute here today I think right. In this substitute there are two man for his clarification.
very wisely provides a bill of rights pages of protections for the rights of Mr. Chairman, it seems to be that
and protection to the worker, probably the examinee-the person who might what we have is a choice between a
far more protection than is provided be examined. sledge hammer approach and an ap-
by H.R. 1524. For example, the examinee would proach of the gentleman from Florida
I want to say, in conclusion, that 333 have to sign a notification prior to any in the substitute that would provide
of you voted last June 1985, to sanc- polygraph examination, and that noti- very precise and real protections. So
tion the use of the polygraph in na- fication would state that he is doing it rather than to allow this House to
tional security and in the Department on a voluntary basis, He is not re- simply vote on the title, I think that
of Defense. quired to take that test. what the gentleman is proposing is a
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Mr. BARTLETT. The gentleman is way to provide those protections with-
DoNNELLY). The time of the gentle- saying that he has to sign a written out that sledge hammer of eliminating
man from Georgia [Mr. DARDEN] has notice prior to the examination? all use of what is used in an area of
expired. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. That is cor- employee rights.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. DARDEN rect. And that notice includes the fact And the gentleman from Florida
was allowed to proceed for 15 addition- that he Is doing it voluntarily. said something during his opening
al seconds.) Now, during that test, the examiner which I think is correct, and that is
Mr. DARDEN. Surely, we owe the may not inquire into an examinee's re- that this is an employee rights piece of
private sector the same degree and the ligious belief or affiliations, he may legislation. The gentleman's substitute
same amount of protection that we not inquire into beliefs or opinions re- does provide for the rights of employ-
owe the Department of Defense. garding racial matters, he may not in- ees.
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
March 12, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 1045
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. BARTLETT] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. BART-
LETT was allowed to proceed for 1 addi-
tional minute.)
Mr. BARTLETT. The employees
who would be protected by the substi-
h d b the hill
ld b
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I
want to join my colleague in opposing
the substitute and supporting the bill.
The polygraph is not a science, and
this amendment tries to put the Good
Housekeeping stamp of approval on
the use of polygraphs in this coun-
try-and you cannot do it.
The basic problem is that the poly-
tuts and wou
e arms yare those employees who are in high graph is not reliable. It tests your
risk, ex-felons, young people, persons heart rate, your breathing rate and
who have lost a previous job, and the your sweat, or your galvanic skin re-
polygraph used as one tool can help sponse, and all of those can be modi-
him to get that job. It protects those fied or subjected to change by reason
fellow employees who are falsely ac- of people who are hyperreactors, who
cused. It protects employees during are very, very nervous or who are on
taking the test and it protects the con- medicine, such as beta blockers, which
sumers who should not have to pay prevent those things from happening
the higher prices due to theft and pil- the way the polygraph operator would
ferage.
I think the gentleman approaches
the subject correctly and with an idea
of employee rights.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the
substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I approach the sub-
ject, of course, in favor of the original
bill and against the substitute, the
whole subject, with trepidation. A
number of years ago, I had the oppor-
tunity to serve as the Lafayette
County prosecuting attorney back
home in Missouri, and on several occa-
sions, I was aware of and knew of the
administration of polygraph tests to
people who were suspected of criminal
activity in one form or another. As a
result of the experience that I h d, in
some cases, at best, there was ihcon-
clusiveness. On two occasions, I have
good reason to believe that people
"beat" the test, that these are far
from reliable operative tests and that
they are no better than the person
who gives them. We are fortunate
back home in my county right now to
House should use a polygraph test.
Why?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. SKELTON] has expired.
(On request of Mr. HERTEL of Michi-
gan and by unanimous consent, Mr.
SKELTON was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
^ 1705
Mr. HERTEL of Michigan. Why in
the substitute do they not require
polygraph tests for elected officials or
candidates for public office? Simply
because they are unreliable, they are
not recognized in court, and therefore
we should not take innocent individ-
uals and take away their livelihood or
deny them the right to have a job and
apply for a job because they will not
be intimidated by being forced to take
such a test.
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. DARDEN. Is the gentleman
aware that under 1524 all Government
employees, both from the Federal,
State, and local are exempt? So the
very bill here exempts all employees
of any government.
Mr. SKELTON. If I may reclaim my
time, I understand what the gentle-
man is saying. But we are speaking
about people in their ordinary, day-to-
day activities. I really think that it is
an invasion of privacy of the greatest
sort to be subjected to this.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. SKELTON] has expired.
(On request of Mr. HERTEL of Michi-
gan and by unanimous consent, Mr.
SKELTON was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Michigan [Mr. HERTEL].
Mr. HERTEL OF Michigan. I just
want to answer the gentleman from
Georgia.
That is exactly the point: Why
should we have different classifica-
htions in this country Some
a a to take it; some? people do onot
have to take the test. If the test was so
good, the courts would have recog-
nized the results of the polygraph test.
The fact is it has come out in this
debate and in past history that they
are not 100 percent accurate nor any-
where near it. So we should not have
different standards, and we should not
say that some people are required to
take this test to get a job or to keep
their job.
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentle
man.
have a sheriff who has been either a fact, if we looked at the substitute, it
deputy or a sheriff for some 27 years, I think no one would question his wide open to all kinds of misinter
and ability. But compare this gentleman, pretations, using the word "substan tial" without defining exactly what
Sheriff Gene Darnell, in has ome "substantial" would mean, when they county, with someone who hhad 6 having to have thepo
weeks lygraph oft raining
anand d Is tha ink that key talk about provisions of simply H.R. 3916 employed there would be a great deal of differ- by written statement by the Secretary ence between the two. of Labor of their State It could be one
sentence saying that they would do
I this, but I would like to question one as to hoW they will enforce it. this, that there is language that But let me go more to the direct
would tend to cause us to believe that issue. What the bill is designed to do is
the polygraph test under the substi to say that someone cannot lose their
tuts would not be the sole tool, but I job or you cannot refuse to hire some
can hear people, unfortunately, one because they will not take a poly-
saying , "But, you know, they flunked graph test. You cannot deny someone
the lie detector test." a livelihood because they will not take
In all truthfulness, I have some sera- a polygraph test. And I do not see the
ous problems or qualms about the people who are supporting this substi-
issue and, because of my past experi- tute saying that candidates for public
S Congress
I am driven irresistibly in favor
including the U
nce
ffi
.
,
e
ce,
o
of the bill. should have to take a polygraph test Mr. DARDEN. I would respectfully
Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, or that incumbents of Congress should point out, though, that you, as a
will the gentleman yield? have to take a polygraph test. I do not Member of Congress, are actually
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentle- see them proposing that the Ethics exempt from a polygraph test under
man from Kansas. Committee of this Congress and this this.
The polygraph is very intimidating
and it can take a person, an honest
person, and turn that person into a
wild, scared person, for fear of the ma-
chine that is strapped around them,
and it is unfair to use that as a tool to
deprive that person of a job.
I think the gentleman also makes a
good point concerning the contention
that under the substitute the poly-
graph could not be a sole criteria, only
one of the criteria. That is ridiculous,
because if an examiner says that the
gentleman or the gentlewoman
flunked the test, I guarantee that
person is not going to get the job.
So I join my colleague in urging
defeat of the substitute and in support
of the bill.
Mr. HERTEL of Michigan. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Michigan.
Mr. HERTEL of Michigan. I thank
the gentleman for yielding, and I also
agree with his remarks. The gentle-
man points out very well that we will
never know if it is the sole reason for
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
H 1046 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 12, 1986
Mr. HERTEL of Michigan. That is tainly as reliable, if not more so, than tourist spending in our State comes
my point. Why should I be exempt if the personal interview, where the one from gaming. Obviously, Nevada has a
we are going to stick it on somebody conducting the interview cannot avoid vested interest in the integrity of
else if they have to take the test? We subjective deductions, and consciously these operations-both to protect the
should be treated the same; we should or not, projects his or her values, likes patrons and to protect State revenue
not be exempt if we allow others to be and dislikes, while listening to the re- generated from these operations.
required to take it. sponses, and analyzing every move- The Nevada gaming industry, in full
Mr. DARDEN. Not under this bill; ment, as well as the verbal and physi- cooperation with our State regulators
we are not treated the same under this cal nuances. Are the person's eyes and law enforcement agencies, uses
very bill. blinking too rapidly? Is he or she nerv- the polygraph along with other meth-
Mr. HERTEL of Michigan. That is ously shuffling papers? What does ods, to insure the integrity of appli-
exactly my point: You are treating us that mean? What message is being cants, employees, and overall oper-
differently under your own substitute, conveyed? What is the message re- ations. It is a tool the industry uses to
and under the bill because it is already ceived? Is it accurate? Can the conclu- police itself, and without it, our State
an existing law. That is because the sions drawn by the interviewer be com- gaming regulators and investigators
standard cannot be met for accuracy pletely objective and fair to the indi- will be further burdened and the blow
for taking and giving a polygraph test. vidual being questioned? Of course, to tourism, our major industry, will be
That is why we should oppose the there can be no such assurances. severe--
substitute and not give, as the gentle- In the House of Representatives we The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
man said, approval for these means of have recognized the legitimate use of
testing and denying employment of the polygraph. We did this just last gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs.
American citizens. year when by an overwhelming vote of V (By uunani has consent
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, 333 to 71, we approved an amendment (By unanimous consent, Mrs. for 1 ad-
tto was allowed
.) to proceed for 1 ad
I move to strike the requisite number to the Department of Defense authori- di Mr OVICH
of words. zation bill, requiring polygraph testing s. minute.)
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair- to be used as a screening device with Mrs. VUCANOVICH.
The polygraph
man, will the gentlewoman yield? employees who have access to sensitive and oa strong
misconduct c uct that ethat d theft
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I yield to the information. And since we have al- and other thaadversely
gentleman. ready acknowledged polygraph testing affect the gaming industry. It has
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the to be a legitimate and effective tool been an effective tool in controlling
gentlewoman very much. I am sorry for the Government to use, how can cash handling, drug trafficking, and
the gentleman from Missouri had to we deny its credibility and effective other matters in cage, casino, and slot
leave, but he made this statement, and ness for the private sector? Surely we criminal el In addition, the removal r-
I quote: cannot condone such a double stand- criminal elements and dishonest per
"That a polygraph examination is no ard-strongly supporting legislation to sorrel provides a positive boost to the
better than the person who gives it." I allow and even require the Govern- morale of the vast majority of employ-
think he has got a lot of merit there. ment to conduct polygraph tests on its ees who are honest and law abiding. I
The substitute that we offer today for employees and prospective employees, have received over 100 letters from
H.R. 1524 provides professional re- while saying to private businesses that such employees who realize that the
quirements for those polygraph exam- the results of such testing are inaccu- use of polygraphs is essential to the
iners. rate and unfair, and therefore cannot integrity of the industry and impor-
We agree with.him, and we want be used? Obviously the use of poly- rant to them as well.
them to be qualified and professional graph testing has its proper place in The Young-Darden substitute, the
in the way that they conduct their both Government and private busi- Polygraph Reform Act of 1985, is the
business. ness, when used within certain guide- proper approach to regulating the use
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, lines. of polygraph testing, ensuring that ex-
today we are discussing the issue of Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, will aminers meet certain standards, while
polygraph testing and its use and ef- the gentlewoman yield? guaranteeing the rights of individuals
fectiveness in the workplace. At issue Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I yield to the being examined. The Young-Darden
is not whether polygraph testing is gentleman. substitute recognizes the need to
good or bad-certainly we wish we Mr. MARTINEZ. Originally, it was permit the use of polygraph testing,
lived in an ideal world where there was not in the bill, but because there was a while at the same time recognizing the
no need for such a tool, where employ- precedent set, or because there was need to provide uniform, strict stand-
ee theft and crime did not occur-but that concern for national security and ards. It is a balanced bill, protecting
we don't reside in such a Utopia, and it was demonstrated by that vote that both the employee and the employer.
internal theft has cost the businesses the gentlewoman alludes to, that It is a moderate alternative, allowing
of our country hundreds of millions of when it was apparent to the author of the private sector the same protec-
dollars a .year-many more times the the bill that there might be in the pri- tions afforded the Government.
amount lost to robbery. We cannot vate sector that "like threat" to securi- This alternative bill is the reasona-
escape the fact that ultimately it is ty, that is why Government entities ble answer to a critical problem that is
the consumer who pays with increases dealing in national security defense growing and costing our businesses
in the cost of goods and services. contracting were allowed to be offered and the public untold millions of dol-
While we recognize that this imper- as an exemption and accepted by the lars each year. I strongly urge my col-
fect world we live in necessitates the author for the very same reasons. leagues to support the Young-Darden
use of polygraph testing in certain sit- But what we have done is exactly substitute.
uations, we also recognize that abuses the same thing that we have done The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
can and do occur. Abuses occur where with national security and in the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs.
there are no standards for training public work force. In the-private work VUCANOVIcH) has expired.
and conducting the tests. Abuses occur force, allow the like situation to exist (On request of Mr. WILLIAMS and by
when the rights of the individual for the equity to be there on both unanimous consent, Mrs. VUCANOVICH
being examined are not a priority, sides. was allowed to proceed for 1 additional
The answer is to eliminate the Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, minute.)
abuses, not the uses of the polygraph. tourism is Nevada's No. 1 industry and Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will
Polygraph testing in employment set- casino gaming is the major element in the gentlewoman yield?
tings, be it prehire interviews or inter- this industry-essential to my State's Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I yield to the
nal investigations, can be an effective economy, which has the highest tour- gentleman.
device when used properly. It is an ef- ism dependency of any State in the Mr. WILLIAMS. We shared your
fective, albeit imperfect tool. It is cer- Union-more than 80 percent of the concern, myself as sponsor of the legis-
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
March 12 1986
COINGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 1047
lation for which the substitute now
stands, and members of the committee
shared your concern about the ability
or inability of gambling enterprises to
polygraph their employees.
We called a company that owns one
of the major casinos in both Nevada
and New Jersey, and asked them if
there was any difference in their
losses and thefts between the casino
which is in the State which allows po-
lygraphing and the casino which is in
the State that does not. They said,
"No, there is no difference."
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Would you tell
me who gave you that response?
Mr. WILLIAMS. The owners of Har-
rah's Club. Just a few days ago, if the
gentlewoman will continue to yield,
this was in the Las Vegas Sun, quot-
ing:
Ridiculous contraptions that don't work
are the words Steven Wynn used to describe
polygraph machines. The Chief of the
Golden Nugget goes on to say "That the
policy of his company is that since the poly-
graph machine has been proven worthless,
we don't use it."
Mr. VALENTINE. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let me say at the
outset that I think I can count and I
recognize that there are a lot of Mem-
bers of this body committed to the leg-
islation. I want to compliment the
sponsors and I respect them all, but I
think they are wrong.
I rise in support of the committee
substitute, H.R. 3916.
Mr. Chairman, the subject of poly-
graph testing in the private sector has
raised a controversy that is difficult to
resolve.
On the one hand, the proponents of
such testing point to the need to pre-
vent dishonesty in the workplace.
They say that polygraphs are an effec-
tive tool in discovering potential and
current employees who could harm
the company for which they work.
On the other hand, critics of poly-
graph point to the right of individual
citizens to protect their thoughts and
opinions from arbitrary invasion. They
say that polygraphs are unreliable and
therefore dangerous to the honest em-
ployee.
All of these people are partially cor-
rect in their views. This fact makes it
all the more difficult to evaluate the
substance of their claims.
H.R. 1524, in my view, goes too far in
paying heed to the fears of polygraph
opponents. This bill would make it im-
possible for the business community to
benefit from polygraph testing that is
conducted in a sensible way.
I believe that we can find a sensible
way, and I believe this solution is to be
found in the amendment, offered in
the nature of a substitute, called H.R.
3916.
This amendment offers protection to
individual rights while allowing em-
ployers the use of tests conducted with
proper protection in mind.
H.R. 3916 sets minimum standards
for the conduct and use of such test-
ing:
It ensures that testing is voluntary.
It prohibits questions that pry into
religion, race, political beliefs, sexual
preferences, or activity in labor organi-
zations.
The bill allows the examinee to stop
the test at any time.
It requires testers to review their
questions in advance with the persons
they examine.
It states that employers may take no
action based on test results alone.
The bill also guards test results from
disclosure to unauthorized persons.
H.R. 3916 enforces these rules by al-
lowing States and local governments
to set up plans in line with the stand-
ards described in the bill. The Secre-
tary of Labor will have power to en-
force these plans. Those who violate
the bill's standards will be subject to
fines of $10,000 and to penalties de-
scribed by the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.
There is without doubt a public need
to ensure employee honesty, especially
in certain sectors of the economy. In
pharmaceutical firms, for instance,
the safety of the public depends large-
ly on the protection of inventory. Dis-
honest employees must be prevented
from gaining access to these stocks.
The same is true for the banking in-
dustry, where millions of dollars in
assets and transactions must be pro-
tected from misuse.
One major insurance company esti-
mates that one-third of all business
failures are caused by employee theft.
This and other economic crime against
business damages the economy by up
to $200 billion annually.
Are polygraphs an effective solution
to these problems? Private business
has long recognized the great value of
polygraph testing. The Committee on
Education and Labor has determined
that 2 million polygraph tests are ad-
ministered in the private sector each
year. This is more than all the exami-
nations in criminal cases and in the
Government combined.
During the last 10 years, the number
of lie detector tests has tripled. Sur-
veys have indicated that approximate-
ly 20 percent of all major businesses in
the United States use polygraph test-
ing. In banking, this figure reaches 50
percent. In retail operations, the
figure is 60 percent.
The reputation of polygraph testing
as a valuable tool is buttressed also by
the use of such testing in almost all
Federal law enforcement, intelligence
and counterintelligence agencies.
All of these figures indicate that
polygraph testing is a popular, widely
recognized method of selecting poten-
tial employees and evaluating the hon-
esty of employees in sensitive jobs.
Passage of H.R. 1524 would unfairly
prohibit private employers from using
this widely recognized tool.
I urge my colleagues to vote instead
for the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, H.R. 3916. I wish to com-
mend my colleagues BILL YOUNG and
BUDDY DARDEN for their work on this
substitute bill. It will protect the con-
stitutional rights of polygraph sub-
jects while guarding the legitimate
rights of employers. Because this bill
so well secures the rights of all the
parties involved in polygraph testing,
it deserves our approval.
I do not think that this Congress
wants to say to American business
that we reserve the right in the Feder-
al Government to use a polygraph all
that we want to, in every way in con-
gressional offices, without any limita-
tion whatever; but the American busi-
nessman shall not touch it. If the
polygraph is the evil and sinister ma-
chine they say it is, then let us abolish
it for every use.
How can we stand here and say to
business in this country that the guy
who operates a jewelry store cannot
use a polygraph, but the Federal Gov-
ernment can.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield to me?
Mr. LIVINSTON. I am happy to
yield to the gentleman.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to H.R. 1524 of-
fered by the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. YOUNG]. The substitute takes the
proper approach in dealing with use of
the polygraph in the private sector-it
does not ban such use, but it does re-
quire that such use meet specific
standards designed to protect the in-
terests of both employers and employ-
ees.
As ranking member on the Intelli-
gence Committee and as a member of
the Armed Services Committee, I have
strongly supported the use of the poly-
graph in personnel security screening
for sensitive national security pro-
grams. The Federal agencies which
use the polygraph to protect the se-
crets involved in such programs have
careful safeguards designed to protect
the rights of employees and prospec-
tive employees who take a polygraph
examination. The amendment offered
by Mr. YOUNG would provide similar
safeguards for the private sector.
I would note that the amendment
offered by Mr. YOUNG has been crafted
carefully to ensure that it does not
impair national security polygraph
programs, including contractor indus-
trial security programs, conducted by
Federal agencies.
I urge my colleagues to support the
Young amendment in the nature of
substitute.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the Young-Darden
substitute to H.R. 1524, and I whole-
heartedly agree with the sponsors that
a total ban on the use of polygraph
tests by the private sector is inappro-
priate and dangerous. I believe that it
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
H 1048 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
is In everyone's interest that poly-
graph results be as accurate as possi-
ble. In my own State of Louisiana,
laws have been passed which establish
guidelines for training and licensing of
polygraph examiners, set require-
ments for the equipment used in the
test, and institute protections for the
rights of those taking the exam.
As I have stated before, I don't see
merit in any Federal involvement in
this area at all, for I believe the States
are fully capable of handling this
matter, but at least, it would be better
to pass legislation modeled on current
State law requirements than to simply
outlaw the use of the polygraph. That
is why I support this substitute
amendment.
This substitute provides strict stand-
ards for the use of polygraphs by em-
ployers In the private sector, governs
how examinations may be conducted,
and prohibits employers from taking
any action based solely on the results
of a polygraph test. In addition, this
measure protects State programs al-
ready in effect and encourages the re-
maining States to set up programs of
their own. I believe that if something
must be done by the Federal Govern-
ment In this area, the best way is to
set up standards for the use of poly-
graphs rather than an outright ban.
There will be a number of amend-
ments offered to exempt certain busi-
nesses from the provisions of this bill.
In fact, H.R. 1524 itself provides for
three exemptions from the total ban
provisions included in the bill. But I
would submit that opponents of poly-
graph tests are inconsistent in their
arguments. On one hand they say that
polygraph tests are not accurate
enough to have any value, then they
go right ahead and make exceptions to
a total ban which in effect admit that
there are legitimate uses for such
tests.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1524 is bad leg-
islation, and I urge my colleagues to
support the Young-Darden substitute
amendment, so that if we are to take
any action, the action we take will at
least be reasonable.
Mr. Chairman, we had a colleague
on the floor a little while ago who had
some questions that I would now pro-
pound on his behalf, since he could
not stay, to the gentleman from Flori-
da, one of the coauthors of the amend-
ment.
Section 5, subsection (a)(1) of the
amendment provides that an employee
or prospective employee who Is asked
to take a polygraph shall sign a notifi-
cation stating, among other things,
that "such examinee is consenting vol-
untarily to take the examination".
I would like to ask the maker of the
amendment, is the intent of that lan-
guage to provide that an employee or
prospective employee must voluntarily
agree to take a polygraph examina-
tion?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, if the gentleman will yield, my
answer is "yes," that is exactly our
intent.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. It must be volun-
tary?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. And if the em-
ployee or prospective employee de-
clines and refuses the polygraph, may
the employer take any employment
action-such as firing, denying a pro-
motion, refusing to hire, or any disci-
plinary action-because of or based on
the refusal?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. No, sir.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Similarly, sec-
tion 5, subsection (a)(3) requires the
employee or prospective employee to
be informed that he or she may termi-
nate the examination at any time
after it has begun. Is the intent of this
language that no employment action
may be taken against the employee or
prospective employee for terminating
the examination?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gen-
tleman will yield, yes, that is the
intent.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Section 7 of the
amendment provides for certification
of state or local plans for regulating
the use of polygraphs. Subsection (3)
of that section requires that such plan
"provide assurances that [the] stand-
ards and the enforcement of [the]
standards [in the state or local] plan
shall be at least as effective as the
standards set out in this Act". Is the
intent of that language that states
and/or local governments may enact,
or maintain if they have previously en-
acted, laws or regulations more strict
than the language of this bill, includ-
ing, if the state or the local govern-
ment so chooses, to totally ban the use
of polygraphs?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. That is the
intent and the effect of the Young-
Darden substitute.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate the gentleman's response.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate the gentleman yielding, be-
cause I have some questions along
those lines.
I am deeply troubled by some of the
provisions of this law; in particular,
one that the gentleman was referring
to with respect to whether or not a
person could be dismissed or fired or
whatever; however, the way I read the
law, and I would like to be corrected if
I am not correct, is that a person who
refuses to take any examination could
be not hired or could be fired.
Now, that is the way I read the law,
and if I am incorrect, I would appreci-
ate being corrected.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. That is certainly
not my understanding, as I understood
the answer of the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
March 12, 1.986
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to certainly state that
under no circumstances can the poly-
graph be the sole determinant as to
whether someone is not hired or dis-
charged. The substitute specifically
prohibits using the polygraph as the
sole determinant.
Mr. JEFFORDS. That is not my
question, though, if the gentleman
will yield.
My question is, based upon the word-
ing of sections 4, 5, and 6, it appears to
me that although if a person consents
to and takes the examination, you
could not use that as a sole reason for
not hiring or for firing; but it does not
answer the question that appears to
me from reading that, that you could
refuse to hire or you could fire some-
one if they refuse to take the poly-
graph examination. That is quite a dif-
ferent question and that is the way I
read the amendment.
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, I would
inform the gentleman that under the
bill as written and the intent of the
authors of the bill, the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. YOUNG] and I, is
that refusal to take the polygraph In
no way could jeopardize or in any way
cause a person not to be hired or dis-
charged.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if
I can reclaim my time, certainly the
gentleman can get his own time in a
few minutes, I would simply say that
that is not my understanding in my
reading of the bill and certainly that is
not what I would intend as I rise here
to support this substitute. I think it is
a good substitute.
More importantly, I think that this
is truly a matter that can easily be re-
solved--
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Louisiana has ex-
pired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. LIVING-
STON was allowed to proceed for 30 ad-
ditional seconds.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, it
appears quite apparent that this is a
matter that can easily be resolved on
an ad hoc basis in each individual
State.
Here we are again sitting here in the
hub of the Nation, in the Nation's
Capital, dipping Into the province of
State legislatures. There is no reason
in the world why this bill should be
before us, but since it is, I certainly
wholeheartedly endorse the Young-
Darden substitute and ask my col-
leagues to support it.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words. I rise in opposition to the sub-
stitute.
Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I
think an employer does have a legiti-
mate grievance when he. interviews a
prospective employee. He is at some-
what of a disadvantage when he is
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
March 12, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 1049
trying to ascertain whether or not ^ 1730 cases except where there might be
that person is credible as to an issue of Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I some violations of the rules and regu-
whether he will steal or not from that move to strike the requisite number of lations set out.
employer; but what we do know about words. That is a vast difference, and the
these machines is that they are falli- Mr. COLEMAN of Texas. Mr. Chair- question is whether we want to give a
ble. What we do know is that these mank will the gentleman yield? right here to businesses to conduct
machines can be misdirected if a per- Mr. JEFFORDS. I would be happy polygraph exams. I do not believe we
son's temperature is wrong, if their to yield to the gentleman from Texas. do.
body chemistry happens to be a cer- (Mr. COLEMAN of Texas asked and For instance, there is a hybrid
tain way, if the operator is not well was given permission to revise and
trained, if the machine is not working extend his remarks.)
that day, we know that machine is fal- Mr. COLEMAN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I
lible. rise in opposition to H.R. 1524, the Employee
What we also need to appreciate I Polygraph Protection Act.
think in this debate is what these sta- I am opposing this bill not because I doubt
tistics mean in the real world. For 4 the stories of abusive employment practices
years I worked in the district attor- which have taken place throughout the work-
ney's office in the Houston area. Most place due to increased reliance on a some-
of that time I prosecuted organized times inaccurate and unreliable procedure, but
crime cases, heavy drug organizations, because I do not believe that Congress
robbery and theft rings, organized should be creating two classes of individuals
crime. We took most of the cases from in relation to polygraph tests generally.
the investigative stage through to If, as many have testified, the overwhelming
trial. body of evidence suggests that these tests
In one particular case I tried an al- are unscientific, inaccurate, and unreliable in
leged robber. This young person went the workplace and, therefore, should be pro-
up to a booth in a parking lot where hibited in the private sector, then why are we
they reproduce film, in a sweatsuit permitting their use-in any form-against
with a hood pulled down over his face, only Government employees. Aside from the
and pointed a pistol at a young 20- obvious flawed logic behind this position, a
year-old woman and demanded her vote for this bill is a vote to allow discrimina-
money. The robbery took maybe 60 tion in the workplace against all Government
seconds, maybe a minute and a half. employees whether they are local, State, or
The robber left with the money and Federal.
ran away. Instead of pretending this inconsistency is
She picked the suspect out of a premised on some tremendous concern about
lineup and insisted that, "Yes, that is the recent rash of espionage cases, this
the person that robbed me that day." House would do well to direct its attentions to
The defendant had five alibi wit- screening methods of those public employees
nesses and he insisted on taking a lie in sensitive national security positions which
detector test. The Houston Police De- promise a degree of reliability and usefulness
partment administered that test and in which we feel confident.
he passed it with flying colors. Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I
We were prepared to dismiss the certainly commend the previous
case, but the young woman insisted, speaker for his excellent statement
"That is the guilty man that robbed and somewhat emotional statement.
me that day," and I tried the lawsuit. I would like to try to clearly draft
When the jury came back with a ver- where the issues are here in my mind.
dict of 25 years for this defendant to I might well have been able to support
do, a young lawyer leaned forward a substitute which provided some
that was sitting behind me in the more leeway for the States. However, I
courtroom and he said, "Do you really just cannot support this substitute.
think he did it? Do you really think he The bill that we have before us, the
was guilty?" original bill, basically eliminates the
Everyone in the courtroom knew of use of polygraphs in employment prac-
the lie detector test except for the tices except under certain circum-
jury that heard the evidence. stances, some of which we have al-
A few weeks later this defendant was ready provided in the bill and some of
brought manacled into the courtroom which would be provided later on,
to receive his formal sentencing and which have to do with national securi-
be sent away to the penitentiary, and ty and health and safety issues where
as he stood in the back of the room the public may be threatened in that
and looked up to the bench, to the sense. Thus, we recognize that al-
judge that was about to sentence him, though generally these are not reli-
he leaned over to the bailiff and whis- able, they may be of some help, under
pered in his ear and said, "You know, those circumstances, to raise some
if I had killed that girl that day, I questions which should be investigated
would never be here now." where national security and health
These machines do not work and it and safety issues are involved.
is time that this Congress stands up However, we have an extremely dif-
and says something about them. Make ferent situation with respect to the
no mistake about it, if you vote for original bill and the substitute. The
this subsitute you are certifying this difference is simply this: The bill
equipment. You are certifying these before you, by the committee, elimi-
faulty machines. nates the use of polygraphs for em-
I urge defeat of this substitute and a ployment practices except in certain
vote in support of this important legis- situations. The substitute gives a right
lation. to conduct polygraph exams in all
system in the substitute which allows
Federal, State, and local agencies to
conduct polygraph exams, and it
might have been better had they left
the original bill the way it was where-
in they had to be approved by the De-
partment of Labor for those plans, but
they have struck that out and they
have said, instead, that it is deemed to
have been approved when you submit
an administrative plan. That is one
problem.
It appears to me that by invoking
the commerce clause in section 2(1)
and then going on with respect, under
section 3, to set forth the uses of poly-
graphs, that they have, in effect, said
that States themselves cannot prohib-
it the use of polygraphs.
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I will if I have time
at the end, but the other side has gone
through and said the opposite. I would
like to bring out these points.
There is going to be a substantial
cost to this amendment, and none to
the original bill. It is going to cost the
Department of Labor somewhere, ac-
cording to the CBO, between $1 and $2
million to administer it, and that is an
unnecessary cost. It is much better to
go with the approach of the bill.
Also, as I previously pointed out, and
I will not go over it again, it appears to
me very clear that under this bill if
someone refuses to take the polygraph
exam, they can be refused to be hired
or can be fired. I do not agree or see
anything which says otherwise.
It protects the present polygraph li-
censees; whereas, new polygraphers
must perform internships and take
exams previous to continuing. Some it
exempts and grandfathers. Those may
be bad polygraph examiners who have
performed more than '200 exams for a
whole year.
Also, although it claims to allow dif-
ferent kinds of polygraph examina-
tions in section 3(a), it then eliminates
the use of anything except those cur-
rently being used by the polygraph ex-
aminers.
It precludes the private right of
action under 14(b), and I would point
out this is probably just a drafting
error, but on that section, by referring
to a section instead of the act, it prac-
tically eliminates all enforcement and
all utilization of the relief.
Under 14(a), if you take a look, if
you have a violation, ordinarily if
there is a violation of an agent of a
company, that liability goes to the cor-
poration or the business. Under this it
just goes to the polygraph examiner,
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
H 1050 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 1.2, 1986
which probably eliminates any effect he volunteers to take it or if he does That is particularly bothersome, since
of relief. not volunteer to take it, that would be we know that tens of thousands of
So I think there are a lot of prob- an action referred to in section 4. workers are wrongfully denied employ-
lems with this bill, but the basic prob- So the employer may not take any ment every year, either because they
lem with me is the very basic question action affecting that employment refused to take the polygraph test on
of do we want to eliminate polygraph status based on section 5, subsection principle or because the inaccuracies
exams as being used for hiring prac- (1). in the process have falsely judged that
tices except under very narrow provi- Mr. JEFFORDS. But that is not the individual.
sions under the bill before us, and per- way I read it, because suppose he re- Admittedly, there are certain indus-
haps some to be added relative to na- fuses to take the ehram? tries in our Nation that have demon-
tional security and health and safety, Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Section 5, strated a proven need for the poly-
or would we allow companies not to subsection (1), says that the exam is graph. These industries include the re-
hire somebody because they refuse to voluntary. curity industry, the pharmaceutical in-
take a polygraph exam? I think that is Mr. JEFFORDS. Right. So he has dustry, and Government intelligence
the basic difference. refused to take it. It is not voluntary. agencies. But, exemptions for these in-
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the Mr. YOUNG of Florida. And section dustries have either already been es-
gentleman from Vermont [Mr..j - 4 says that his status cannot be affect- tablished in this bill, or will be estab-
FoRDsl has expired. ed by a test given in conjunction with lished in the bill today. I am satisfied
(On request of Mr. DARDEN and by section 5, which says that it is volun- with those exemptions. They provide
unanimous consent, Mr. JEFFoRDS was tart'. for the responsible and necessary use
proceed for 2 additional Mr. JEFFORDS. But it does not say of the polygraph, while allowing the
minutes.) that if he does not take it th t th
t
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Georgia.
Mr. DARDEN. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman
aware that under the substitute that
the States can still totally prohibit the
use of polygraphs in their respective
States and that the States, in fact, can
be even more restrictive than the min-
imum Federal standards set forth in
the substitute?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I would appreciate
it if the gentleman would point that
wording out to me because I cannot
find it in the bill and the people we
have shown it to cannot find it.
Can the gentleman tell me which
section it is that says that the States
can prohibit?
Mr. DARDEN. If the gentleman will
yield further, we will make that avail-
able to him.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I would be happy
to yield to the gentleman from Flori-
da.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, on the other techni-
cal question that the gentleman had
asked, I would like to respond if he
would allow me.
Sections 4 and 5 need to be read to-
gether, because section says that:
No employer may take any action affect-
ing the employment status of an employee
or prospective employee, if such action is
based on the results of a polygraph exami-
nation of such employee or prospective em-
ployee ? ? '.
In section 5, the first subparagraph
says-
Mr. JEFFORDS. Hold on. If I may
reclaim my time, it goes on to say
"that has not been administered in ac-
cordance with sections 5 and 6 of this
act."
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. That is the
point I am getting to. That is correct.
But in section 5, subsection (1) says,
"such examinee is consenting volun-
tarily to take the examination." So if
a
remaining provisions in the bill to pre-
cannot be used as a reason for
hiring him. not vent the abuse, misuse, and overuse of
.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I think "vol-
untary" means you can take it or you
cannot take it. It is up to the person
being examined.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I hope the gentle-
man is right, but that is certainly not
the way I read it.
Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
Quite frankly, the idea of formal
standards for polygraph testing has a
good deal of appeal on the surface, but
those of us who have heard testimony
about the abuse, misuse, and overuse
of polygraph testing in the private
sector know that standards are simply
not enough. We need responsible, yet
strict limitations on the use of poly-
graph testing and once the amend-
ment process is completed here today,
a process I will be involved in, I am
confident that H.R. 1524 will meet
that objective.
The American Polygraph Associa-
tion estimates that more than two mil-
lion polygraph tests are being given
each year, 98 percent of which are
being given by private business. That
number is very troubling to me. Con-
sider, for example, that our Nation's
largest private security services provid-
er, a company employing some 55,000
security personnel, gave only 900 poly-
graph tests in 1984. They have testi-
fied before our committee that they
use these tests on a very selective
basis, and in no case is a person denied
employment or dismissed solely on the
results of a polygraph examination.
Certainly, there is no company in
the private business sector that could
establish any greater need for the
polygraph test. Why, then, do we have
more than 2 million of these tests
being conducted each year? Are they
really necessary? My close study of
this issue says no.
Not only are these tests being over-
used, but I am familiar with too many
cases of a lie detector test being used
as the sole determinant of whether a
person is hired for a particular job.
the he detector at. This is a very fair
and balanced approach.
The Darden-Young substitute falls
short of the mark. Standards will not
be able to prevent the unscrupulous
employer from pressuring employees
or prospective employees from "volun-
teering" to take the test, and stand-
ards will not prevent the unscrupulous
employer in States that prohibit the
tests to simply send job seekers to a
neighboring State to take the test and,
Mr. Chairman, these types of abuses
are occurring.
The American work force deserves
our support and protection. H.R. 1524
sends the right message, the Darden-
Young substitute does not. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
^ 1740
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mr. FORD of Michigan asked and
was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of H.R. 1524, the Employee Poly-
graph Protection Act, which would prohibit
most uses of the polygraph in private sector
employment. Passage of H.R. 1524 will pro-
tect millions of American workers-and their
employers-from the abuses associated with
a misplaced reliance on the polygraph ma-
chine as a "lie detector."
I want my position to be perfectly clear. If
there really were such a thing as a valid lie
detector, I would not be opposed to its use,
just as I am not opposed to background
checks and other investigations designed to
determine whether employees are lying or
truthful. If an employee tells an employer, "I
am a high school graduate" or "I have never
used narcotics" the employer has every right
to investigate whether the employee is telling
the truth. But a polygraph machine won't pro-
vide the answer.
According to the Congressional Office of
Technology Assessment, as employment
screening devices, polygraph tests give wrong
answers nearly as often as they give correct
answers. The result is that thousands of inno-
cent, talented potential employees are unfairly
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
March 12, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 1051
denied, jobs, while employers are falsely lulled pseudoscientific tests, will have a Fed- to administer it properly, asks the
into hiring thousands of undersirable people era), certificate of approval on his wall. wrong questions or does not effectively
who manage to pass their polygraph tests. I urge defeat of this amendment. ask the questions at all. No question, a
It is no wonder that the past chairman of Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I preemployment screening can be abu-
the Georgia Board of Polygraph Examiners move to strike the requisite number of sive, or a screening of any sort under
testified that he would be unwilling to take a words. the polygraph.
polygraph test in his State if his job and (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was That interest, though, and how
career were to depend on the results. given permission to revise and extend often it occurs has to be weighed
No scientifically valid study has ever shown his remarks.) against the very strong public inter-
that polygraph tests can detect lies. What Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I ests in many sectors of our society
studies there are indicate that polygraphs rise today to discuss this issue because today to be able to screen out people
wrongly identify innocent subjects from 5 to it concerns me greatly that we are in who would be thieves, people who
88 percent of the time. Thus, even under the the process of making a choice be- would steal from companies, people
best of circumstances, 5 innocent individuals tween competing public interests, and who would steal from the public be-
in 100 will be labled as guilty, denied a job, or we seem to be having a great deal of cause these companies represent the
fired. In the worst scenario, 88 innocent difficulty getting the disection of the public interest. And it is when weigh-
people out of 100 would be incriminated. two competing interests clearly laid ing these interests that we get in trou-
It is no surprise that in the overwhelming before the Members. I would like to do ble drawing that line. How do you
majority of State and Federal courts, poly- that, and reason hopefully with my write a bill like this one that draws
graph tests are inadmissible as evidence colleagues about where we ought to be that line? I think you can see the diffi-
unless all parties consent to their admissibility. going on the Young-Darden amend- culty by the number of exceptions
Many courts, includng those in my own State ment and on this bill. that are created in this bill, and the
of Michigan, will not permit the use of poly- I do not think there is any question number of exceptions that apparently
graph tests as evidence even when the par- but that there are those who rightful- are going to be seen on amendments
ties stipulate to their admissibility. The'courts ly point to the fact that polygraph ex- that will follow if this one is not
do not admit polygraph evidence because aminations-lie detector examine- adopted, all kinds of concerns over the
there is no way to determine its reliability. Em- tions-are not always accurate. They pharmaceutical industry, for example.
ployers interested in an accurate evaluation of never have been and they probably The Drug Enforcement Administra-
their employees should follow the courts' ex- never will be. It is not an absolute sci- tion says one-half million or a million
ence. doses of drugs are stolen every year by
anItWl is wrong to allow employers, however In the area of criminal law, I have employees of pharmacies and whole-
well-intentioned they might be, to subject job dealt with those. I remember doing sale drug manufacturers and distribu-
applicants or employees to the Russian rou- this when I was on active duty in the tors. This increases the cost of drugs
lette of polygraph testing. The congressional military. They certainly are not going to consumers.
Office of Technology Assessment estimates to be acceptable, and they should not expenditures
drugs ine the cutback k in in efixed ins
hat as many as 50,000 innocent employees be in the course of a criminal prosecu- Imagine
lose their jobs each year because of inaccu- tion where the proof is beyond a rea- comes gs could experience elderly people on fix drug
rate polygraph tests, while large numbers of sonable doubt in order to convict a manufacturers could cut back on those
guilty employees-shoplifters and em- person who is accused of a crime. But theft losses? The National Association
bezzlers-are wrongly exonerated. Employers they have been used successfully by of Chain Drugstores estimates con-
lose both ways, by retaining bad employees our law enforcement officials in the sumers pay 10 to 15 percent more for
and by losing valuable, honest, and loyal em- process of criminal prosecutions in drugs to cover losses from internal
ployees. behalf of the accused in situations theft.
Regulation of polygraph testing is no that I have been involved in, and I am have had one amendment to this
answer. Regulation cannot transform the poly- sure many others around the country We dealing with this. We
graph test into a valid lie detector. It can only have been. That is when there is some bill have
nuns tes to have this. We
create a false aura of validity and encourage questionable evidence involved in the are he floor going today t to allow the another
more employers to rely on polygraph testing. I case and the accused himself often- one probably on the floor op-
urge my colleagues to defeat the Young and times is allowed the opportunity to s portunity to have examina-
Darden substitute and to vote for H.R. 1524, present a polygraph examination, con- pion used in connection ve polygraph eciyn with ethe
just one example ma-
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I ducted by a reputable lie detector ceuts where ceuticals. That needs to is be.
move to strike the requisite number of giver of that examination, and he
words. comes out according to that exam as I understand there may be another
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong oppo- saying that he is speaking the truth one dealing with the armored car de-
sition to the Darden-Young substitute and the benefit of the doubt is given liveries of cash. Frankly, we need to
amendment. This amendment would to him, and he is then oftentimes look at the whole area of financial
create a Federal regulatory scheme for faced with no charges. The charges services where we have got problems
the polygraph practice in the private are dropped. with money laundering. Where else is
sector and, in doing so, would legiti- Now let us look at what we are talk- the public interest greater in not
mize it as an accepted part of the ing about today. We are not talking having thieves than in our banking
American workplace. about the criminal world. We are talk- world today where 80 percent of the
As I have indicated previously, the ing about the civilian world. We are internal losses of banks in this country
polygraph has no acceptable place in talking about lawsuits, we are talking each year are from internal theft; $382
the screening of workers who are not about employment. We are talking million last year in losses in banks for
under suspicion of wrongdoing. The about business opportunities and busi- that reason, not to mention the vul-
practice of polygraph screening itself ness interests and the public interests. nerability of the public to money laun-
is fundamentally flawed from a scien- What are the public interests here? dering of drug dealings in cash
tific standpoint and inherently abusive There is a public interest, no question through the process of our financial
under American principles of justice. about it, being argued by the commit- institutions.
The American Psychological Asso- tee bill out here today and those who There are a myriad of those. There
ciation has condemned polygraph would argue against this amendment. are no exceptions in this bill for that.
screening by its members as unethical. There is a public interest in reducing I could go on and on and on, as many
The Darden-Young substitute, howev- the possible abuse of the polygraph. will do today if this amendment does
er, authorizes the practice; its regula- We do not want to see it abused, and it not pass, and lay out the litany of ex-
tory approach is a wolf in sheep's can be abused in the sense that an em- amples of where we have a public in-
clothing. Under its terms, every pri- ployer would discriminate in its use, or terest in allowing the polygraph to be
vate polygrapher in the country who in the sense that somebody who does used, even though there is a compet-
runs American workers through his not know how it is being used, or how ing interest that says maybe we should
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
H 1052 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 12, 1986
do away with it. We have got to have There. are no relevant lifestyle ques- My State of Colorado has no stand-
those exceptions to protect the public. tions and the control questions are de- ards for polygraph givers, so employ-
It seems to me that under the cir- signed to be nonintrusive. Private em- ers may be paying for poor quality,
cumstances of this, with the national ployment polygraph exams usually but worse, an employee may be labeled
security interests already excepted, concentrate on honesty and use of for life by incorrect results.
with Government employees in many drugs and alcohol. The questions are
cases already excepted, with the dual often quite intrusive. Unnecessarily ^ 1750
standard being created by this legisla- embarrassing questions produce far So what happens is you can have
tion that the logical thing, rather than more false positive than do less intru- people with no experience go out and
create this whole long list of excep- sive questions. Further, the Federal make terrible mistakes, and it is the
tions that we otherwise would have to program involves extensive pretest employees who will then pay for the
do in this bill, and just let a few people interviews during which every ques- rest of their lives.
have them, it seems to me that the tion to be asked will be reviewed. Not So, I think that is why the substi-
logical thing to do rather than to necessarily so in the private sector. tute is majorly flawed. I had tried to
create this whole additional laundry RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS figure out how to put an amendment
list of exceptions where the public in- In the Federal program, individuals on it, but could not in time. The bill is
terest has to be weighed more heavily who refuse to take the examination majorly flawed because it does not
in favor of using the polygraph are ordinarily reassigned to other, less deal with the States that have no cri-
against the other aspects of the public sensitive work, without loss of pay. teria; and by passing this, it is really
interest involved that we adopt a There are no such protections in the giving a feel of congressional approval
broad policy statement in this legisla- private sector. Federal civilian and to the utilization of polygraphs in the
tion that puts some limits and checks military personal have the right to private sector, and I think that is a
on the users of polygraphs, that re- counsel outside the examination room, very dangerous thing to do.
quires certification of the persons who they are reminded of their privilege I hope the substitute will not pass,
are administering them and of the pa- against self-incrimination, and they because it goes in the wrong direction
rameters to which the testing may go are not asked about religion, politics, by not having that very vital protec-
as far as questions asked and so forth. or personal beliefs, all interviews are tion. The machine is one thing, but
That is what the Young-Darden recorded and all charts are reviewed the machine is only as good as the
amendment does. by a second or third examiner. The re- person who uses it, and many States
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the sults are never communicated outside have not dealt with that. So to have a
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCOI.- a very small group of officials. Virtual- Federal mandate that we should start
LUMI has expired. ly none of these protections exist in moving down that road is wrong and
(By unanimous consent, Mr. McCOL- the private sector. to say that, well, we are just doing this
LUM was allowed to proceed for 1 addi- USE OF RESULTS because the Federal Government
tional minute.) No action can be taken against an in- could do it is also not accurate because
Mr. McCOLLUM. This is the sensi- dividual based solely on the results of the Federal Government has very
ble way to approach the abuses in the a polygraph examination. Deceptive
stringent
polygraph given in the private indus- results can lead to further investiga- standards.
try of this country, and I urge may tion, but, unless the deception is sub- Mr. YOUNG of Florida Will the
eld?
colleagues to think about this for a stantiated by external investigation, MgentlewomanCHR Oy
minute. I think when you do, you will no adverse action is taken. In the pri- Mrs. I yield to the
realize that rather than riddling this vate sector, the charts are often the gentleman.
bill full of exceptions hither and yon, only determining factor. Frequently, Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the
the logical thing to do is to pass the charts are not reviewed by a second gentlewoman for yielding. In the be?
comprehensive approach that Young- examiner. And, unlike the Federal ginning, I thought she was speaking
Darden allows to correct the abuses Government where the questions are for our substitute. She is correct, that
without killing off the good and neces- repeated three times to assure the ac- presently there are no standards that
sary part of giving lie detector tests to curacy of results, often a single re- exist in the private sector, while they
those in private industry who are em- sponse will be considered decisive in are stringent in the Federal sector.
ployees in very sensitive areas. the private sector. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I am talking
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, EXAMINER CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING about standards, reclaiming my time,
I move to strike the requisite number The Federal Government requires standards for the training of the poly-
of words. completion of a 14-week training pro- graph examiners.
(Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was gram, including the live administra- Now, had the gentleman brought in,
given permission to revise and extend tion of 50 exams, and a 6-month in- say, DOD Directive No. 5210.48, which
her remarks.) ternship. States have varying stand- is the Federal Government's, then we
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, ards. Yet, there are no private-sector would know what that standard was,
how can Congress support limited use training courses which involve the live but there is not a standard in there.
of the polygraph as a counterespio- administration of anywhere near 50 You defer to the States and many
nage tool by the Government and still exams. The Federal Government re- States have no standards.
pass this legislation which severely re- quires a B.A. degree and 2 years of in- Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gen-
stricts polygraph use by private em- vestigative experience. There are no tlewoman will yield, on page 6 of our
ployers? such private-sector requirements. substitute, we provide that a poly-
The answer lies in the profound dif- I am not a big fan of the Federal graph examiner must be at least 21
ference in the scope of polygraph ex- counterintelligence polygraph pro- years of age, a citizen of the United
aminations, the rights of the individ- gram. It is very expensive and the reli- States, a person of good moral charac-
uals subject to the examination, the ability of the polygraph for counter- ter, in compliance with all laws, rules
uses of the test results, and the train- intelligence screening is not supported and regulations of any appropriate
ing and certification of polygraph ex- by any valid research. State or local government governing
aminers between the Federal Govern- Still, a responsible, limited program, use of the polygraph, holds a B.A.
ment counterintelligence and private when used in conjunction with other degree from an accredited college or
sector employment polygra
hs
Co
p
.
n- security measures, may make sense. university, has successfully completed
Sider the differences: ve?.?:.+:.,.... ____ _ _ ___ _ . .
SCOPE OF EXAMINATIONS quality polygraphs in the private graph that has been approved by the
The Federal counterintelligence ex- sector to determine the employment Secretary, and has completed a poly-
amination involves six specific rele- future of millions of Americans is graph examiner internship of at least
vant questions concerning contact nothing short of scandal. The bill 6 months duration under the direct su-
with hostile intelligence services. before us today corrects that problem. pervision of a polygraph examiner
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
March 12, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
H 1053
who has met the requirements of this the committee version for the simple measure that. If the money is stolen,
section. reason that I think . today more than how are you going to be able to tell?
I think we have to have these strin- any other issue, business men and So I think the importance is that
gent requirements. women in this country are concerned the private businesses such as casinos
Mrs. SCHROEDER. If the Federal about this continuing attitude in who handle money as they do, money
Government is looked at, they have a Washington, DC that somehow folks loses its name once it leaves your
much more stringent one, and I can in Washington have better sense than hand; cash does. If we can have the
point out what that is, it is a 14-week folks back home. ability in our State and private indus-
training course, it includes 50 live ex- H.R. 1524 is a classic example of that try where it is in compliance with our
aminations, a 6-month internship and type of mentality, that somehow we State law, it is a very important tool,
the administration of anywhere near have got to continue to set standards and it is obviously not the only tool.
50 exams, a B.A. degree, and 2 years of out of Washington; in this case com- I thank you very much for the time.
investigative experience. pletely usurping the right of the pri- Mr. SWINDALL. Two other points
I think that that is a much stricter vate sector to use a polygraph is at that I would like to make very briefly,
standard, and I think if we are going least part of a multifaceted process of Mr. Chairman are: First, the inconsis-
to compare oranges and apples, we determining not only qualifications for tence of H.R. 1524. On the one hand it
should have exactly the same standard employment, but also in determining argues that polygraph tests are some-
that we have in the Federal Govern- how to best contain theft losses which how invalid and then on the other
ment. ultimately benefits the public at large. hand it argues an exemption in a
Otherwise, I think we have a major What concerns me about 1524 is, it number of categories, mostly relating
loophole that people can get through, just continues to usurp the same to the public sector. How can it be in-
and that concerns me. rights that individuals I think repeat- valid in the private sector but yet have
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gen- edly have stated at least if you go to validity in the public sector?
tlewoman will yield, I agree with that. my district and talk to individuals, The other attitude that bothers me
Our standards are not quite as strict that they would be perfectly satisfied about this bill is this same prevailing
as those of the Defense Department, if they could just go about the busi- attitude that State governments and
but they are far stricter than any that ness of running their business with local governments are incapable of not
exist today, because basically through- the least amount of interference from only noting problems, but solving the
out the country there are practically Washington, DC. problems.
no standards at all. The substitute that has been offered I happen to believe very strongly
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I think that by Mr. YOUNG and Mr. DARDEN I think that our local elected officials are very
when we go ahead and say that we are addresses the real hearts of the con- capable of addressing these problems,
going to do this, we should have it at terns of those individuals who feel and do not need our help.
least at the same level if we are going that polygraphs have been abused; but I will yield to Mr. YOUNG.
to say we are doing it in the private it does not go so far as to outlaw that Mr. YOUNG of Florida. During the
sector, because they do it in the Feder- provision; it does set some very ration- debate of our colleague from Texas
al sector. al standards, and even sets forth some [Mr. ANDREWS] he made what I
As I say, in the Federal sector, we remedies that do not exist under cur- thought was an effective argument
also have all sorts of other protections rent law. against the position that I support.
such as the rights of individuals; the For the reason, Mr. Chairman, I I want to have an opportunity to re-
availability of counsel; and so forth think that we do a tremendous disserv- spond to that, because I did not want
and so on, and it is very well laid out. ice not only for businesspersons in this to let it go unanswered.
That I do not see, and as I say, I will country, but to consumers who will He made the point that machines
put all of this in the RECORD; but that ulitmately bear the cost of this bill in are fallible, and I agree with that. God
I do not see as an equivalent, and I the
so sense that there will be taken knows the families of the seven crew
really worry that that could allow away a very substantive way that indi- members of the shuttle Challenger
Mr. abuse. viduals can regulate losses in their know that machines are fallible.
M. YOUNG of Florida. If the gen-
more businesses. He also said that these machines do
tlewoman would yield just one last point I would make is that not work.
time, I would request respectfully ully mothaat that no employer under this substitute (On request of Mr. YOUNG of Florida of this-- Mrs. read SCHROEDER. section 4 and 5 le t would be authorized to take any action and by unanimous consent, Mr. SwiN-
has red tsection, The ge solely of the basis of a polygraph test. DALL was allowed to proceed for 2 adds
what I am read the h pointing out. and d that is s Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Will the gen- tional minutes.)
what
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I think you tleman yield? Mr YOUNG of Florida. If the gen-
will find that- Mr. SWINDALL. I yield to the gen- tleman will yield, in that argument
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Is that it is not tlewoman. after saying that machines are fallible,
the same. I wish it were the same. It is Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I would just he also said that polygraph machines
not the same, and I am saying if we like to make a point that I did not do not work. But at the same time,
are talking about saying we are doing have a chance to make, again in sup- H.R. 1524, the vehicle that he sup-
this because we do it in the Federal port of the Young-Darden substitute. ports in opposition to our substitute,
sector, then it should be the same. Our colleague from Montana [Mr. allows the use of the unworkable ma-
And that is all I am saying. WILLIAMS] referred to the fact that all chine by the Defense Department,
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. But once of the casinos in my State did not feel which we support of course.
again, it is far better than the non- this was important, and I did want to He is also prepared, as are the spon-
existent protections- make the point that 90 percent of the sors of H.R. 1524, to allow the use of
Mrs. SCHROEDER. It is stil not the northern Nevada casinos want to have this supposedly unworkable machine
same level of protection that we give the ability to use the polygraph, and for FBI contractors.
to Federal employees, and I think we 70 percent of the southern Nevada ca- ^ 1800
should make it the same or we cannot sinos support it.
use that as an argument. Our colleague also referred to a They are willing to allow the sup-
Mr. SWINDALL. Mr. Chairman, I casino owner, a Mr. Steve Wynn, who posedly unworkable machine in the
rise to strike the requisite number of has a casino in the southern part of use of those dealing with drugs. I un-
words. our State, in Las Vegas, and said that derstand they are also prepared to
Mr. Chairman, as a former practic- the casinos that use polygraph and accept exemptions for public utilities,
ing attorney and as a private business the casinos that do not, there is no public security services, armored car
owner, I rise in support of the Darden- loss difference; and I would like to personnel, uniformed security person-
Young substitute, and in opposition to know how in the world anyone can nel, the jewelry business, the legalized
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
H 1054 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 12, 1986
gaming business, aviation employees, ers and job applicants to take poly- fered to protect airlines, to protect
and banks. I understand that they are graph tests to keep or get their jobs. utilities. All of these things are subject
prepared to allow exemptions for this Does that seem voluntary to you? The to sabotage. This is the very kind of a
supposedly unworkable machine for requirements for a polygraph license procedure that can work out as effec-
many, many types of industry. I think imposed by the substitute are so weak tively as it does in the Government op-
that is inconsistent. I would like to that a polygrapher could obtain a erations in the individual States and
close this argument by saying that polygraph license without even a high- communities. This bill is a bill that
what we are trying to do with the school education. would encourage States who have not
Young-Darden substitute is not only But the true purpose of the poly- set up any programs for operating this
protect against the criminal, but also graph is, what? I submit to you, it is kind of detection to go ahead in this
to protect the innocent who might lose basically to intimidate people. Most in- field under appropriate standards.
his job if he was not able to have formation obtained from a polygraph I think it is this kind of legislation
access or if the industry was not able interrogation is obtained before the that will help American businesses
to have access to the use of the poly- examinee is even hooked up to the and will reduce the type of wrongdo-
graph. We believe by having a profes- polygraph machine because they are ing that we have been seeing in the
sional approach to using the poly- so afraid of the machine. business sector in recent months and
graph with a legal safeguard for the The real way to effectively protect recent years.
person being examined that we are people from the intimidation of the Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-
protecting the innocent and we are polygraph is, how? It is to ban its use. ance of my time.
protecting the consumer who pays The procedure and the machine are Mr. THOMAS of Georgia. Mr.
more than $40 billion a year now be- flawed, not reliable. We should not Chairman, I move to strike the requi-
cause of internal theft. play with this kind of thing. Let us site number of words, and I rise in sup-
I thank the gentleman for yielding. protect our constitutional rights.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal- port of the Young-Darden substitute
gentleman from Georgia has expired. ance of my time. and t and (Mr. opposition of the gia
(By unanimous consent, Mr. SWIN- Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I (Mr. THOMAS of Georgia asked and
DALL was allowed to proceed for 1 addi- move to strike the requisite number of was given permission to revise and
tional minute.) words. extend his remarks.) Mr. SWINDALL. In my own busi- (Mr. STRATTON asked and was Mr. THOMAS of Georgia. Mr.
ness, I have repeatedly used the poly- given permission to revise and extend Chairman, the possibility of polygraph
graph to protect individuals in situa- his remarks.) abuse can be a problem, as we have
tions where they are suspect. I, for Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman I heard in testimony before our commit-
one, have on numbers of occasions have served some 34 years in naval in- tees and as we read in newspaper ac-
hired former felons and one of their telligence, and I think I have experi- counts. We need legislation to address
protections is, when an individual ac- enced some number of individuals who this potential abuse, and I believe that
cuses them wrongly, they can go to a have operated a polygraph and who the best approach is contained in the
polygraph examination and vindicate have carried on polygraph examina- substitute offered Mr. YouNC and Mr.
themselves, and they, I know from tions in connection with the principles DARDEN.
personal experience, have applauded administered and proposed in the This substitute bill has a number of
the use of that to vindicate them- other legislation which exempts the protections for those taking the
selves. Federal Government employees and exams. And it also represents a much
I would certainly hate to see us take defense operations of the Nation but more appropriate federalist" ap-
away that very valid method of vindi- somehow the idean of utilizing the proach to solving this problem.
cation. polygraph in local governments or in Historically, States assume the re-
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, I move businesses is said to be wrong. sponsibility to regulate and license
to strike the requisite number of The point was made by the gentle- those who deliver services to their citi-
words, and I rise in opposition to the man who spoke just a moment ago zens. Utilities are regulated by the
substitute. that if it is so wrong, why is it OK in States. Insurance companies and real
(Mr. SHELBY asked and was given the other bill? The idea of a polygraph estate brokers are licensed by States,
permission to revise and extend his re- is not that you run everybody through as are doctors, lawyers, dentists, and
marks.) it to see how many people are lying. other professionals. The States
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, the You use it simply when you have some assume the duty to protect their citi-
substitute seeks to curb polygraph individual whom you may suspect of zees and to fine-tune regulations to
abuse by regulating the testing proce- some nefarious activity. A polygraph cover their particular needs and cir-
dure and licensing polygraph opera- usually ends up at the end of the line cumstances.
tors. I believe that polygraph tests are when you make a final determination. Polygraph examiners fit into this
basically abusive. H.R. 3916 would I think there is a good deal of misun- same category of professionals offer-
only legitimize the Federal Govern- derstanding that if somebody loses ing services to businesses and individ-
ment's approval of what I think is an something, you are going to run every- uals. At least 30 States have passed
unscientific subjective procedure that, body through the polygraph and try legislation to regulate the polygraph
by its very nature, violates some of the to find out who was guilty and who industry by licensing examiners and
fundamental principles of our Consti- was not. Why are we objecting to the setting standards for exams.
tution: the presumption of innocence, idea of utilizing it in business? In fact, The States' right to govern them-
the right of privacy, and the privilege in recent years, we have seen all kinds selves should be respected. State legis-
against self-incrimination that we all of businesses which have been preyed lators are working to develop legisla-
have. upon. There have been banks that tion which protects the rights of ex-
Experience by a lot of us, and I have have had individuals taking money out aminees, establishes training guide-
served as a prosecutor and as a U.S. of the banks. lines for examiners, and restricts the
magistrate and as a practicing attor- We have had the kind of industrial kinds of questions that can be asked so
ney, experience shows that polygraph espionage that has taken place in the the personal lives of examinees are not
licensing and regulatory statutes will case of a couple of companies in Japan invaded.
not work and do not work. I also be- coming over here to the United States. The Young-Darden substitute would
lieve that the rights provided by H.R. Our business, our whole procedure encourage other States to follow suit
3916 are meaningless in practice and of keeping American businesses going and would set up clear guidelines for
you have got to ask yourself how vol- indicates that there are many opportu- States to institute the kinds of protec-
untary can polygraph examiners nities for sabotage, for larceny, all of tions that examinees need. It seems to
really be when H.R. 3916, the substi- these other things. In fact, a number me that this approach is much more
tute, allows employers to require work- of bills and amendments have been of- responsible than the committee bill
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
March 12, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 1055
blanket prohibition against polygraph Of course, I said, "No." I never stole That is what this bill will do, be-
use in the private sector. anything. I never did anything that I cause we have found that every State
The polygraph has been used for thought was real terrible. But I guess that has passed regulations over lie de-
decades by businesses that have par- in my subconscious. I remembered I tectors has ended up with an explosion
ticular security problems. Many of borrowed a marble when I was 5 years of use, because people have become
these businesses are likely to get ex- old, and didn't return it. snookered into believing that the lie
emptions from the committee bill so He said, "That's what it was. You detector works because the stamp of
they can continue to use the exams. stole a marble when you were 5 years approval of the Government has been
That means that tens of thousands of old, so you flunked. You are not going put on it.
employees and job applicants would to get the job as a State trooper." As a side matter, one of the other
continue to be subject to potential I said, "That is absolutely ridicu- gentlemen in the debate mentioned
abuses. lous. I want to see the next person in two recent spies, both tragic cases, but
The committee bill simply won't charge." I went to see the next superi- let me bring them up again, the cases
work in the real world. The polygraph or officer, and he said it was ridicu- of Mr. Walker and Mr. Chin. They
will continue to be used, and instances lous. were apparently, and convicted of
of polygraph abuse could continue The point I am making is the poly- being, spies against this country.
unless we do something. Prohibition is graph is only as good as the examiner What the proponents of this substi-
not the answer. What will work is leg- and the questions and the way they tute, which I oppose, did not tell you
islation that is carefully drafted and are predicated. I have no problems wasthat Mr. Walker and Mr. Chin
which recognizes the practical needs with some of the exemptions in this took and passed the lie detector test
of American business and that is sensi- bill. I voted for the bill to allow the that was given to them. What they
tive to the potential harm that can be Defense Department to give poly- also did not tell you is Mr. Walker
done to examinees by improperly graphs. It is a very useful investigative used to be a lie detector examiner. He
trained testers or others who abuse tool. used to give the tests.
test results. My fear is that we are going to put Finally, we need to look at this, and
I believe that the States are best the congressional stamp of approval we need to look at it in a dispassionate
able to consider all of these needs and on polygraphing every person who ap- manner: Do these things work? Are
to find the balance that works best for plies for a job in any business in this they reliable?
their citizens. The States should have country as a precondition to employ- A polygraph instrument cannot
the authority to pass their own bills, ment. I think we have a responsibility detect truth or deceit. It can detect in-
using the guidelines set out in the sub- to the workers in the country, as well creases in blood pressure. It can detect
stitute bill. as to our businesses and to our Gov- increase respiration. It can detect in-
I urge my colleagues to support the ernment. For that reason, I oppose the creased perspiration. But it cannot
Young-Darden substitute as the most substitute and I urge passage of the detect lies. It cannot find the truth. It
sensitive and responsible solution to bi1Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I detects something, but it does not
instances of polygraph abuse. detect lies because there is no uniform
0 1810
Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the
substitute.
(Mr. ROBINSON asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, I
will make my remarks very brief. I
have, listened to the arguments on
both sides, and both sides have made
very valid points.
However. I would like to briefly di-
gress and talk about my experiences
with the polygraph starting back in
1963, when I entered law enforcement
as a rookie police officer trying to
obtain a college degree and work
during the daytime and go to school at
night.
I had to take a polygraph test once
as a condition for employment in law
enforcement. The examiner that ad-
ministered the test to me was a very
cantankerous gentleman who was in a
big hurry that afternoon to hurry up
and finish his screening process of all
of us young potential rookie cops. He
came out and told me after my test
that I had failed.
He said, "I asked you one question
rise to strike the requisite number of physiological response for all liars.
words. That is primarily why this gadget does
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to not work.
the substitute, which is a good-faith The human is a complex instrument.
attempt and has been well presented It is a system of thought processes and
by its sponsors and cosponsors.
The chairman of the subcommittee, processes and intellectual
,
the gentleman from California, men- processes, all woven together in a way
tioned that we have a Congressional that man does not understand.
Budget Office estimate that this sub- The lie detector people would tell
stitute would cost the Federal Govern- you that that gadget is able to pierce
ment $1 to $2 million in administrative that human intellect and discover
costs. Let me read to you from the what is going on inside of it, whether
Congressional Budget Office letter: the brain is lying or telling the truth.
The bill would increase the workload of People are not psychologically trans-
the Department of Labor, and so result in parent.
increased costs for that agency. H.R. 3916 Business has been snookered by the
requires all persons conducting polygraph lie detector industry. Business is get-
examinations to be certified by the Secre- ting the business from the polygraph
tary of Labor, and requires the Secretary to industry. The lie detector assumes
make continuing evaluations of certifica-
tions. Should a certification be withdrawn, when we lie you can see it. Our nose
appeals may be brought in the District
Court. In lieu of this process, the Secretary will grow. We will sweat a certain
is responsible for certifying administrative amount more. Our respiration will
plans of state and local governments. In ad- rise. The lie detector gadget, my
dition to these duties, the Secretary must friends, does not work.
issue rules and regulations necessary to im- Perhaps America would be better off
plement the act, make necessary inspections if it did, but it does not.
and investigations, prepare and print no-
tices to be posted upon the premises of Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues
every employer involved in interstate com- to oppose the substitute.
merce, and approve training and continuing
education classes necessary for examiners to
receive and maintain certification.
Based on information from several states
on this test," and he said, "You lied." that license polygraph examiners, we esti-
I said, "What was the question? I mate that the additional costs to the federal
don't think I lied." government as a result of this bill would be
He said, "I asked you a question: between $1 million and $2 million annually.
Have you ever done anything in your The question is, does the Congress
life that, if we found out about it, of the United States want to spend an-
might be embarra ,sing to you or this other $2 million to encourage the use
department?" of lie detector gadgets in this country?
0 1820
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1524
and to close the debate for the propo-
nents of the amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objec-
tion, the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
YOUNG] is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
H 1056
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank my colleagues for the
generosity of their time this after-
noon. I Just want to respond to a
couple of points, as those of us who
support the substitute close the
debate.
The chairman of the committee pre-
senting the bill makes the point that
CBO has said our substitute will cost
from $1 to $2 million to administer.
That is nothing compared to the ad-
ministrative cost of most bills that this
House considers. But when you com-
pare it to the nearly $40 billion a year
that our Nation's businesses are losing
from internal theft and that we are
trying to prevent by a professional ap-
proach to the polygraph, the $1 to $2
million is a great investment.
The gentleman also suggested that
this machine is not any good and that
it cannot determine the truth. He says
all it does is measure temperature and
perspiration and heart rate. If that is
the case, why is he willing to make it
available for certain segments of our
Government and, certain segments of
our private Industry, but not others. I
find something very, very inconsistent
in that argument. If it is good for one
industry, it is good for another. I think
that argument is very, very flawed and
very, very inconsistent.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my col-
league, the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. DARDEN], to close the debate on
this amendment.
Mr. DARDEN. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding and I want to join my
colleague in expressing my clear sur-
prise at the sponsor of the bill and the
distinguished chairman of the commit-
tee who complains about spending $1
million to save $50 billion, $50 billion
which is stolen from the businessmen
of America by dishonest employees.
I think we can spend and ought to
spend $1 million or $2 million or $10
million to assure that we do not con-
tinue to permit this type of theft be-
cause, Mr. Chairman, here is what
happens when we have $50 billion
stolen from the private sector: The
cost goes up.
Who ends up paying for it? The tax-
payer, the consumer.
Mr. Chairman, it is estimated that,
as a result of employee theft in this
country, the cost of goods at retail is
10 to 15 percent more than what it
would be did not employee dishonesty
occur.
So I think $1 million is a small
price to pay, Mr. Chairman, In return
for taking all precautions that we can
take against dishonest employees.
I would also point out, Mr. Chair-
man, that in this day of a litigation-
conscious society, employers are con-
stantly being sued and brought to
court and being held accountable for
not properly screening, not properly
seeing that the persons they hire have
matters in their backgrounds which
are objectionable; for example, the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
employee working for the telephone
company who might rape a customer,
or something, while making a service
call.
So, in many instances, we are being
asked and employers are being held
more and more accountable to the
general public for a closer scrutiny of
their employees.
But let me finally say, Mr. Chair-
man, in conclusion, that the substitute
ought to pass, and the reason it ought
to be is that we should not have one
standard for the private sector and an-
other standard for the public sector. It
is time to put this hyprocrisy to rest.
And remember that on the motion
of my colleague from Florida, in June
1985 this House approved polygraph
use by the Department of Defense, by
a vote of 333 to 71.
H.R. 1524 would take away from pri-
vate industry an investigative tool
which the Congress has deemed appro-
priate and necessary for use by the
Federal Government. If it is good
enough for the Federal Government,
it is good enough for the businessmen
of America.
I urge the adoption of the substi-
tute.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment in the nature of a sub-
stitute offered 'by the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. YOUNG].
The question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that he was in
doubt.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I
demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were-ayes 173, noes
241, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 45]
AYES-173
Anderson
DeWine
Jenkins
Archer
Dickinson
Jones (NC)
Armey
Jones (TN)
Badham
Dowdy
Kindness
Barnard
Dreier
Kolbe
Bartlett
Duncan
Kramer
Barton
Eckert (NY)
Lagomarsino
Bateman
Emerson
Leath (TX)
Bennett
Fawell
Lent
Bentley
Fiedler
Lewis (CA)
Bereuter
Fields
Lewis (PL)
Bevill
Fish
Lightfoot
Bilirakis
Flippo
Livingston
Bliley
Fowler
Lloyd
Boulter
Franklin
Lott
Broomfield
Frenzel
Lowery (CA)
Brown (CO)
Frost
Lujan
Broyhill
Fuqua
Lungren
Byron
Gekas
Mack
Callahan
Gingrich
MacKay
Carney
Goodling
Madigan'
Chandler
Gradison
Marlenee
Chapman
Hall (OH)
Martin (NY)
Chappell
Hatnmerschmidt McCain
Chappie
Hansen
McCandless
Cheney
Hartnett
McCollum
Cobey
Hefner
McEwen
Coble
Hendon
McGrath
Coleman (MO)
Henry
McKernan
Combest
Hiler
McMillan
Craig
Hillis
Michel
Crane
Holt
Miller (OH)
Daniel
Hopkins
Molinari'
Dannemeyer
Huckaby
Monson
Darden
Hunter
Montgomery
Daub
Hutto
Moore
DeLay
Hyde
Moorhead
Derrick
Ireland
Morrison (WA)
March 12, 1986
Myers
Sensenbrenner
Stump
Nelson
Shaw
Sundquist
Nichols
Shumway
Sweeney
Oxley
Shuster
Swindall
Packard
Sil finder
Tallon
Parris
Sisisky
Tauzin
Petri
Skeen
Thomas (CA)
Pickle
Slaughter
Thomas (GA)
Porter
Smith (NE)
Valentine
Ray
Smith, Denny
Vander Jagt
Regula
(OR)
Vucanovich
Roberts
Smith, Robert
Walker
Roemer
(NH)
W h i tehurst
Rogers
Smith, Robert
Whitley
Rose
(OR)
Whittaker
Roth
Snyder
Whitten
Roukema
Solomon
Wolf
Rowland (GA)
Spence
Wortley
Schaefer
Spratt
Wylie
Schuette
Stenholm
Young (FL)
Schulze
Stratton
NOES-241
Ackerman
Gallo
Murtha
Akaka
Garcia
Matcher
Alexander
Gaydos
Neal
Andrews
Gejdenson
Nielson
Annunzio
Gibbons
Nowak
Anthony
Gilman
O'Brien
Applegate
Glickman
Oakar
Atkins
Gonzalez
Oberstar
AuCoin
Gordon
Obey
Barnes
Gray (IL)
Olin
Bates
Gray (PA)
Ortiz
Bedell
Green
Owens
Beilenson
Gregg
Panetta
Berman
Guarini
Pashayan
Biaggi
Gunderson
Pease
Boehlert
Hamilton
Penny
Boggs
Hawkins
Pepper
Boland
Hayes
Perkins
Boner (TN)
Hefel
Price
Bonior (MI) ,
Hertel
Pursell
Bonker
Horton
Quillen
Borski
Howard
Rahatl
Bosco
Royer
Rangel
Boucher
Hubbard
Reid
Boxer
Hughes
Richardson
Breaux
Jacobs
Ridge
Brooks
Jeffords
Rinaldo
Bruce
Johnson
Ritter
Bryant
Jones (OK)
Robinson
Burton (CA)
Kanjorskl
Rodino
Burton (IN)
Kaptur
Roe
Bustamante
Kastch
Rostenkowski
Carper
Kastenmeier
Rowland (CT)
Carr
Kemp
Roybal
Clay
Kennelly
Russo
Clinger
Kildee
Sabo
Coats
Kleczka
Savage
Coelho
Kolter
Saxton
Coleman (TX)
Kostmayer
Scheuer
Conte
LaFalce
Schneider
Conyers
Lantos
Schroeder
Cooper
Leach CIA)
Schumer
Coughlin
Lehman (CA)
Selberling
Courter
Lehman (FL)
Sharp
Coyne
Leland
Shelby
Crockett
Levin (MI)
Sikorski
Daschle
Levine (CA)
Skelton
Davis
Lipinski
Slattery
de Is Garza
Long
Smith (FL)
Dellums
Lowry (WA)
Smith (IA)
Dicks
Luken
Smith (NJ)
Dingell
Lundine
Snowe
Dixon
Manton
Solarz
Donnelly
Markey
St Germain
Dorgan (ND)
Martin (IL)
Staggers
Downey
Martinez
Stallings
Durbin
Matsui
Stangeland
Dwyer
Mavroules
Stokes
Dyson
Mazzoli
Strang
Early
McCloskey
Studds
Eckart (OH)
McDade
Swift
Edgar
McHugh
Synar
Edwards (CA)
McKinney
Tauke
Edwards (OK)
Meyers
Torres
English
Mica
Torricelli
Erdreich
Mikulski
Towns
Evans (IL)
Miller (CA)
Trafleant
Fasceil
Miner (WA)
Udall
Fazio
Mineta
Vento
Feighan
Mitchell
Visclosky
Florio
Moakley
Volkmer
Foglietta
Mollohan
Walgren
Foley
Moody
Watkins
Ford (MI)
Morrison (CT)
Waxman
Ford (TN)
Mrazek
Weber
Frank
Murphy
Weiss
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
March 12, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Whi-at
Woloe
Young (AK)
Williams
Wright
Young (MO)
Wikini
Wyden
Zschau
Wirth
Yates
Wisc
Yatron
NOT VOTING-20
Addabbo
Evans (IA)
McCurdy
Aspin
Gephardt
Rudd
Brown (CA)
Grotberg
Stark
Campbell
Hall. Ralph
Taylor
Collins
Hatcher
Traxler
Dornan (CA)
Latla
Weaver
Dyinally
Loeffler
^ 1835
Mr. SAXTON changed his vote from
"aye" to "no."
Mr. BARTON of Texas and Mr.
CRANE changed their votes from
"no" to "aye."
So the amendment in the nature of
a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was an-
nounced as above recorded.
^ 1845
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:
SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS OF LIE OF.TECFOR USE.
It shall be unlawful for any employer en-
gaged in commerce or in the production of
goods for commerce--
(1) directly or indirectly, to require, re-
quest, suggest, or cause any employee or
prospective employee to take or submit to
any lie detector test:
(2) to use, accept, refer to, or inquire con-
cerning the results of any lie detector test of
any empoyee or prospective employee;
(3) to discharge, dismiss, discipline in any
manner, or deny employment or promotion
to. or threaten to take any such action
against-
(A) any employee or prospective employee
who refuses, declines, or fails to take or
submit to any lie detector test; or
(B) any employee or prosepctive employee
on the basis of the results of any lie detec-
tor test: or
(4) to discharge or in any manner discrimi-
nate against an employee or prospective em-
ployee because-
(A) such employee or prospective employ-
ee has filed any complaint or instituted or
caused to be instituted any proceeding
under or related to this Act;
(B) such employee or prospective employ-
ee has testified or is about to testify in any
such proceeding; or
(C) of the exercise by such employee, on
behalf of himself or others, of any right af-
forded by this Act.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman. I
ask unanimous consent that the re-
mainder of the bill be considered as
read, printed in the RECORD, and open
to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Vermont?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the
bill, beginning with section 3, is as fol-
lows:
SE('.:1. NOTICE OF PROTECTION.
The Secretary of Labor shall prepare,
have printed, and distribute a notice that
employers are prohibited by this Act from
using a lie detector test on any employee or
prospective employee. Upon receipt by the
employer, such notice shall be posted at all
times in conspicuous places upon the prem-
ises of every employer engaged in commerce
or in the production c f goods for commerce.
H1057
SEC. 4. AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR. telligence functions, of any lie detector
(a) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary of Labor test-
shall- (A) to an individual assigned or detailed to
(1) issue such rules and regulations as may the Central Intelligence Agency or to any
be necessary or appropriate for carrying out expert or consultant under a contract with
this Act; the Central Intelligence Agency:
(2) cooperate with regional, State, local, (B) to (i) an individual employed by or as-
and other agencies, and cooperate with and signed or detailed to the National Security
furnish technical assistance to employers, Agency, (ii) an expert or consultant under
labor organizations, and employment agen- contract to the National Security Agency,
ties to aid in effectuating the purposes of (iii) an employee of a contractor of the Na-
this Act: and
(3) make investigations and inspections
and require the keeping of records neces-
sary or appropriate for the administration
of this Act.
(b) SUBPENA AUTHORITY.-For the purpose
of any hearing or investigation under this
Act, the Secretary shall have the authority
contained in sections 9 and 10 of the Feder-
al Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 49, 50).
SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.
(a) CIVIL PENALTIES.-(l) 'Subject to para-
graph (2), whoever violates this Act may be
assessed a civil penalty of not more than
$10,000.
(2) In determining the amount of any pen-
alty under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall take into account the previous record
of the person in terms of compliance with
this Act and the gravity of the violation.
(3) Any civil penalty assessed under this
subsection shall be collected in the same
manner as is required by subsections (b)
through (e) of section 503 of the Migrant
and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protec-
tion Act (29 U.S.C. 1853) with respect to
civil penalties assessed under subsection (a)
of such section.
(b) INJUNCTIVE ACTIONS BY THE SECRE-
TARY.-The Secretary may bring an action
to restrain violations of this Act. The dis-
trict courts of the United States shall have
jurisdiction, for cause shown, to issue tem-
porary or permanent restraining orders and
injunctions to require compliance with this
Act.
(C) PRIVATE CIVIL ACTIONS.-(1) An em-
ployer who violates the provisions of this
Act shall be liable to the employee or pro-
spective employee affected by such viola-
tion. An employer who violates the provi-
sions of this Act shall be liable for such
legal or equitable relief as may be appropri-
ate, including without limitation employ-
ment, reinstatement, promotion, and the
payment of wages lost and an additional
amount as liquidated damages.
(2) An action to recover the liability pre-
scribed in paragraph (1) may be maintained
against the employer in any Federal or
State court of competent jurisdiction by any
one or more employees for or in behalf of
himself or themselves and other employees
similarly situated.
(3) The court shall award to a prevailing
plaintiff in any action under this subsection
the reasonable costs of such action, includ-
ing attorneys' fees.
SEC. 6. EXEMPTIONS.
(a) No APPLICATION TO GOVERNMENTAL EM-
PLOYERS.-The provisions of this Act shall
not apply with respect to the United States
Government, a State or local government,
or any political subdivision of a State or
local government.
(b) COUNTERINTELLIGENCE PROGRAM EXEMP-
TION.-(1) Nothing in this Act shall be con-
strued to prohibit the administration, in the
performance of any counterintelligence
function, of any lie detector test that is con-
ducted pursuant to section 1221 of the De-
partment of Defense Authorization Act,
1986.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed
to prohibit the administration, in the per-
formance of any intelligence or counterin-
tional Security Agency, or (iv) an individual
applying for a position in the National Secu-
rity Agency; or
(C) to an individual assigned to a space
where sensitive cryptologic information is
produced, processed, or stored for the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency or the National Se-
curity Agency.
(c) EXEMPTION FOR FBI CONTRACTORS.-
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
prohibit the administration, in the perform-
ance of any counterintelligence function, of
any lie detector test to an employee of a
contractor of the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation of the Department of Justice who is
engaged in the performance of any work
under the contract with such Bureau.
(d) EXEMPTION FOR DRUG THEFT OR DIVER-
SION INVESTIGATIONS.-This Act shall not.
prohibit the use of a lie detector test on cur-
rent employees by an employer investigat-
ing a reported theft or diversion of a con-
trolled substance listed In schedule I, II, III.
or IV pursuant to section 202 of the Con-
trolled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) to the
extent that
(1) such use is consistent with-
(A) applicable State and local law, and
(B) any negotiated collective bargaining
agreement,
that explicitly or implicitly limits or prohib-
its the use of lie detector tests on such em-
ployees; and
(2) the test is administered only to em-
ployees with direct access to such controlled
substances.
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act-
(1) The term "lie detector test" includes
any examination involving the use of any
polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress ana-
lyzer, psychological stress evaluator, or any
other similar device (whether mechanical,
electrical, or chemical) which is used, or the
result of which are used, for the purpose of
detecting deception or verifying the truth of
statements.
(2) The term "employer" includes any
person acting directly or indirectly in the in-
terest of an employer in relation to an em-
ployee or prospective employee.
(3) The term "commerce" has the mean-
ing provided by section 3(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 203(b)).
SEC. S. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The provisions of this Act shall take effect
on the date of enactment, except for section
3, which shall take effect six months after
the date of enactment of this Act.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR, WILLIAMS
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman. I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. WILLIAMS:
Page 6, beginning on line 20, strike out all of
subsection (b) through page 7, line 17, and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
(b) NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY Ex-
EMPTION.-(1) Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to prohibit the administration, in
the performance of any counterintelligence
function, of any lie detector test to-
(A) any expert or consultant under con-
tract to the Department of Defense or any
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
H 1058 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 12, 1986
employee of any contractor of such depart- This is to advise you that the Committee Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, will
ment; or on Armed Services is supportive of the the gentleman yield?
(B) any expert or consultant under con- amendment you propose to offer to section Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the gen-
tract with the Department of Energy in con- 6(b) of the bill. That amendment would
nection with the atomic energy defense ac- exempt consultants or employees of con-
tivities tleman from Vermont.
of such department or any employee tractors of the Department of Defense from Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I
of any contractor of such department in the provisions of the bill. We believe it is thank the gentleman for yielding, and
connection with such activities. necessary that the bill provide a specific ex- just to say that the minority has re-
(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed emption for employees of contractors of the viewed the amendment and has no
to prohibit the administration, in the per- Department of Defense and for consultants objection to it.
formance of any intelligence or counterin- of the department.
telligence function, of any lie detector test Sincerely, The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
to- LES ASPIN, Chairman. the amendment offered by the gentle-
(A)(i) any individual employed by, or as- man from Montana [Mr. WILLIAMS].
signed or detailed to, the National Security CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, The amendment was agreed to.
Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC, December 11, 1985
(ii) any expert or consultant under contract Hon. AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. JEFFORDS
to the National Security Agency or the Cen- Chairman, Committee on Education and Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I
tral Intelligence Agency, (iii) any employee Labor, House of Representatives, Wash- offer an amendment.
of a contractor of the National Security ington, DC. The Clerk read as follows:
Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am pleased to re- Amendment offered by Mr. JEFFORDS:
or (iv) any individual applying for a position spond on behalf pf the Central Intelligence Page 9, strike out lines 8 through 11 and
in the National Security Agency or the Cen- Agency to your letter of December 4, 1985 insert in lieu thereof the following:
tral Intelligence Agency: or concerning H.R. 1524.
(B) any individual assigned to a space The Agency's concern with this legislation SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.
where sensitive cryptographic information has been the sufficiency of the exemption This Act shall take effect 6 months after
is produced, processed, or stored for the Na- for employees of Agency contractors. We the date of the enactment of this Act.
tional Security Agency or the Central Intel- have reviewed the "Amendment in the Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, this
ligence Agency. Nature of a Substitute to Section 6(b) in amendment merely makes the effec-
Mr. WILLIAMS (during the read- H.R. 1524" which was enclosed with your tive date 6 months after enactment In-
ing). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous le
tter. Assuming that this amendment were stead of upon enactment, to give the
to Agencys
consent that the amendment be con- be b be alleviated adopted, and the the e Agen Agen'cy y would concern ve no industry time to adjust to the new law
sidered as read and printed in the have no
objection to this legislation. Other agencies, and allow the Secretary of Labor to
RECORD. however, may seek amendments to the ex- promulgate such notices as he may
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection emption provisions to insure that polygraph deem appropriate.
to the request of the gentleman from examinations are not precluded for contrac- Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, will
Montana? tors and consultants employed by the Fed- the gentleman yield?
There was no objection. eral Government and having access to clas- Mr. JEFFORDS. I am happy to yield
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, the Thank sifted y information. mation. the to the gentleman from California.
amendment I am offering today has m this legislation. opportunity to com-
been reviewed by the other side. I un- Theo Office oagement and Budget committee has E eviewed thenamend-
derstand there are no objections. It has advised that there is no objection to the ment and has no objection to it.
has been developed in discussions with submission of this report from the stand- The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the Department of Defense, the De- point of the Administration's program. the amendment offered by the gentle-
partment of Energy, and the Central Sincerely, man from Vermont (Mr. JEFFORDSI.
Intelligence Agency and has their full CHARLES A. BRIGGS,
support. Director, Office The amendment was agreed to.
I am including in the RECORD letters of Legulative Liaison. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ECKART OF OHIO
from them to Chairman HAWKINS for Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, this Mr. ECKART of Ohio. Mr. Chair-
the RECORD confirming their support. amendment is technical in nature. It man, I offer an amendment.
The amendment has been reviewed simply consolidates language relating The Clerk read as follows:
and agreed to by the Armed Services to the decision of the House earlier a
Committee of the House as well as by few months ago to grant the use of lie
my friends in minority. detectors to some agencies of the Fed
The letters are as follows: eral Government.
THE UNDER SECRETARY of DEFENSE,
Washington, DC., December 11, 1985.
In reply refer to: I-18837/85.
Hon. AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS,
Chairman, Committee on Education and
Labor, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to
your letter of December 4, 1986 in which
you offer amendment language to House
Resolution 1524.
We do indeed support the language of the
amendment and interpose no objection to
the Bill so long as agencies of the Federal
government and persons contracting with
the government are exempt from its provi-
sions.
Sincerely,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
Washington, DC., December 12, 1985.
Hon. PAT WILLIAMS,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC
DEAR PAT: I understand that H.R. 1524,
the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of
1985, will soon be considered by the House.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I
am happy to support the gentleman's
amendment. We have read it and this
side supports the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Montana [Mr. WILLIAMS].
The amendment was agreed to. that explicitly or implicitly limits or prohib-
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. WILLIAMS:
Amendment offered by Mr. F,CKART of
Ohio: Page 8, strike out lines 1 through 15
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
(d) EXEMPTION FOR DRUG SECURITY, DRUG
THEFT, OR DRUG DIVERSION INVESTIGA-
TIONS.-This Act shall not prohibit the use
of a lie detector test by any employer au-
thorized to manufacture, distribute, or dis-
pense a controlled substance listed in sched-
ule I, II, III, or IV pursuant to section 202 of
the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
812) to the extent that-
(1) such use is consistent with-
(A) applicable State and local law, and
(B) any negotiated collective bargaining
its the use of lie detector tests by any such
employer;
(2) the test is administered only to an em-
ployee who has, or prospective employee
who would have, direct access to any such
controlled substance; and
in lieu thereof "basis". wr charts are not used as the sole basis
upon which any employee or prospective
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, this employee is discharged, dismissed, disci-
amendment is very technical in Alined in any manner, or denied employ-
nature, simply changing the date to ment or promotion.
make it conform with this year and Mr. ECKART of Ohio (during the
also correcting a typographical error, a reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unani-
misspelling. mous consent that the amendment be
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
March 12, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 1059
considered as read and printed in the
RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
(Mr. ECKART of Ohio asked and
was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
^ 1900
Mr. ECKART of Ohio. Mr. Chair-
man, when this legislation came
before the Education and Labor Com-
mittee last fall, I was successful in in-
cluding language which provides a spe-
cific exemption for the pharmaceuti-
cal industry with respect to its han-
dling of controlled substances. My
committee amendment allows those
employers in the industry to poly-
graph employees who have direct
access to controlled substances as part
of a broader investigation into a theft
or diversion of such drugs.
The amendment I am offering today
would alter the committee-approved
language in two ways: No. 1, the ex-
emption would be slightly expanded to
allow for the preemployment screen-
ing of prospective employees who
would have direct access to these sub-
stances during the course of their em-
ployment, No. 2, the amendment ex-
plicitly prohibits that the results of
the test be used as the sole basis for
hiring or firing an employee.
During consideration of my amend-
ment in committee, concern was ex-
pressed that by only allowing the test-
ing of employees during an investiga-
tion, rather than before he or she is
hired, is synonymous with closing the
barn door after the horse has escaped.
While I have serious reservations re-
garding the accuracy of this instru-
ment, reservations that are supported
by a number of studies which question
the scientific validity of the poly-
graph, I am offering this exemption
because of my concerns with the epi-
demic of drug abuse in this nation.
Yet, because of the questionable ac-
curacy of the lie detector, especially
with regard to preemployment testing,
my amendment protects employees by
requiring that the evidence from the
test must be supported by additional
information before punitive,action can
be taken against that employee or pro-
spective employee.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my
amendment. The full committee, in
approving my earlier language, agreed
with my premise that we must extend
every legal tool available to the phar-
maceutical industry to assist in com-
bating the theft of dangerous drugs. I
firmly believe that it is in our interest
to do all that we can to halt the illle-
gal trafficking and selling of drugs. I
hope that my colleagues will support
this amendment.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ARMEY TO THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ECKART OF OHIO
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. ARMEY to the
amendment offered by Mr. ECKART of Ohio:
Page 1, strike out lines 14 through 16 and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
(2) the test is administered only to an em-
ployee who has, or prospective employees
who would have, access to the manufacture,
storage, distribution, or sale of any such
controlled substance: and
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer
this amendment somewhat reluctantly
because I do support the thrust of the
Eckart amendment.
When this bill was before our full
committee, I offered an amendment to
exempt the drug industry from the
demand for polygraphs, and my
amendment was amended by the gen-
tleman from Ohio to limit preemploy-
ment testing and to limit testing to
those employees who have direct
access to controlled substances.
Given the nature and extent of our
drug problem and the lengths that
some will go to obtain drugs, I felt this
was unwise. This particular exemption
for the drug industry was adopted by
the committee, and I am very pleased
that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
ECKARTI proposes now to add that
preemployment testing. I am con-
cerned, however, with the limitation
on testing for those who have only
"direct access to controlled sub-
stances."
It is not hard to imagine a number
of scenarios whereby employees who
are far removed from the direct han-
dling of drugs can be very directly in-
volved in stealing them. This, Mr.
Chairman, is what my amendment ad-
dresses. It is not difficult, for example,
to understand the extent to which
people will go, the lengths they will go
to obtain these drugs illegally and
then, of course, to move them on the
street and access them to our young-
sters.
Obviously, business already does a
good deal to create procedures for
handling of the drugs that would give
us some sense of security, and anybody
who would try to bypass these proce-
dures would find themselves with
some difficulty, especially when you
realize that the recording of the trans-
actions and the recording of the mani-
fests are kept separate from that
person who actually physically moves
the drugs. It turns out in all too many
cases that if an individual is driving
the truck, for example, and wishes to
move the drugs or remove them, that
they would be faced with the fact that
there is a paper trail, a record on the
movement of these drugs, and for him
to be able to get away with that, it
would be necessary to have that record
altered. We have documented cases
where the theft was only made possi-
ble by the fact that the individual was
able to conspire with somebody, per-
haps a computer operator or a billing
clerk that was able at the same time
the drugs were removed to alter the
record. So indeed they could not be
traced through this paper trail.
The long and the short of my
amendment is that we have got to be
able to use this instrument of investi-
gation to detect the entire trail of
these drugs, and to be able to have
some assurance that we can investi-
gate at any juncture where, indeed, an
infraction of the security of the drugs
may take place and become available
to our youngsters in the future.
Mr. ECKART of Ohio. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARMEY. I am happy to yield to
the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. ECKART of Ohio. I have two
short questions if my friend would. We
list the schedules, I, II, III, and IV.
There are similar schedules. When the
gentleman uses the word "controlled
substances," I assume he refers to the
section 202 common list of controlled
substances?
Mr. ARMEY. Yes, I do.
Mr. ECKART of Ohio. The second
question I would have would focus on
the word "access." My concern would
be the cashier, the clerk, someone who
would not be in the manufacture, stor-
age, distribution. Can we get some
agreement to insert the word "direct"
before the word "access," to try to
narrow the focus?
Mr. ARMEY. I share the gentle-
man's concern and he is absolutely
right about somebody employed in the
business that has no access whatso-
ever. I am concerned about the record-
keeping, and the gentleman under-
stands that problem.
Mr. ECKART of Ohio. If the gentle-
man would put the word "direct" in
there, then I will be happy to accept
the amendment.
Mr. ARMEY. I see the gentleman's
point, given the manufacture, storage,
and distribution, and then we would
have covered all of the bases that we
feel need to be, without spilling over
into areas that are not in need.
Mr. ECKART of Ohio. If the gentle-
man would ask unanimous consent to
include that word, we would be happy
to accept the amendment under the
circumstances.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Montana.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, in
the instance of a computer operator
who is filling in the location and the
amounts of these code A drugs, is that
computer operator considered to have
direct access to those drugs under the
gentleman's amendment?
^ 1910
Mr. ARMEY. Well, I would consider
that a direct portion of the distribu-
tion process. In other words, if you
talk to people in this industry who, of
course, feel this responsibility of
moving these, one of the components
of their plan for security is to keep
that paper trail so that we can know,
in effect, who they are checked out to
and what inventory was left, which lo-
cation and so on.
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
H 1060 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 12, 1986
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the The amendment, as amended, was
gentleman has expired. agreed to.
(On request of Mr. ECKART of Ohio, AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MRS. ROUKEMA
and by unanimous consent, Mr. ARMEY Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional offer an amendment.
minutes.) The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. ARMEY. I would be concerned Amendment offered by Mrs. ROUKEMA:
that anybody who would be able to Page 8, after line 15, insert the following
have the responsibility to keep the new subsection:
record of the movement of these mate- (e) EXEMPTION FOR SECURITY SERVICES.-
rials, whether they are entering the (1) Subject to paragraph (3), this Act shall
record or perhaps on the other end, not prohibit the use of a lie detector test by
would have an opportunity to alter a private employer whose primary business
that record and thereby cover the, purpose consists of providing armored car
or less cover the tracks of the personnel, personnel maintenance engaged in the design,
more person who physically removed them. alarm systems, or other uniformd or plain-
I share the concern of the gentle- clothes security personnel and whose func-
man from Ohio. We do not want this tion includes protection of-
to spill over to janitors or other (A) facilities, materials, or operations
people. having a significant impact on the health or
Mr. WILLIAMS. If the gentleman
will yield, do I understand that the
gentleman has willingly accepted the
word "direct" to be placed before the
word "access" in his amendment?
Mr. ARMEY. I believe if we put the
word "direct" In there, given our un-
derstanding of what we mean by dis-
tribution; I expect perhaps to hear
some legislative record of that under-
standing, we would probably all find
ourselves quite satisfied.
Mr. WILLIAMS. If the gentleman
will yield, I would say to the subcom-
mittee chairman and to my friend
from Ohio, that the sponsor of the
legislation would accept the amend-
ment.
Mr. ECKART of Ohio. Mr. Chair-
man, I ask unanimous-consent that
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Texas [Mr. ARMEY] be modi-
fied after the word "have," and after
the comma to insert the word "direct".
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the unanimous consent request of
the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The text of the amendment, as
modified, is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. ARMEY to the
amendment offered by Mr. ECKART of Ohio:
Page 1, strike out lines 14 through 16 and
insert in lieu thereof:
(2) the test is administered only to an em-
ployee who has, or prospective employee
who would have, direct access to the manu-
facture, storage, distribution, or sale of any
such controlled substances; and
safety of any State or political subdivision
therof, or the national security of the
United States, as determined under rules
and regulations issued by the Secretary
within 60 days after the date of the enact-
ment of this Act, including-
(i) facilities engaged in the production,
transmission, or distribution of electric or
nuclear power;
(ii) public water supply facilities;
(iii) shipments or storage of radioactive or
other toxic waste materials; and
(iv) public transportation; or
(B) currency, negotiable securities, pre-
cious commodities or instruments, or propri-
etary information.
(2) The exemption provided under para-
graph (1) shall not diminish an employer's
obligation to comply with-
(A) applicable State and local law, and
(B) any negotiated collective bargaining
agreement, which limit or prohibit the use
of lie detector tests on such employees.
(3) The exemption provided under this
subsection shall not apply if-
(A) the results of an analysis of lie detec-
tor charts are used as the sole basis upon
which an employee or prospective employee
is discharged, dismissed, disciplined in any
manner, or denied employment or promo-
tion; or
(B) the test is administered to an employ-
ee or prospective employee who.is not or
would not be employed to protect facilities,
materials, operations, or assets referred to
in paragraph (1).
Mrs. ROUKEMA (during the read-
ing). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be con-
sidered as read and printed in the
RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of th
tl
e gen
ewoman
Mr. ECKART of Ohio. Mr. Chair- from New Jersey?
man, we are delighted to accept the There was no objection.
modification, and appreciate the gen- (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was
tleman's expression of concern on this given permission to revise and extend
question. her remarks.)
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentle- Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I
man. join Congressman BIAGGI in offering
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on an amendment which would exempt
the amendment offered by the gentle- from the bill's coverage firms whose
man from Texas [Mr. ARMEY], as primary business is to furnish protec-
modified, to the amendment offered tive security services when they are
by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. engaged in the protection of sensitive
ECKART]. facilities and valuable items and docu-
The amendment, as modified, to the ments. The Roukema-Biaggi amend-
amendment was agreed to. ment includes armored car, uniformed
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on and plainclothes guards, and security
the amendment offered by the gentle- alarm companies. It would allow poly-
man from Ohio [Mr. ECKART], as graphs to be administered for the pro-
amended. tection of such facilities as nuclear
powerplants, public water supply, and
public transportation.
First, I would like to commend my
colleague on the Education and Labor
Committee, Mr. BIAGGI, a cosponsor of
H.R. 1524, who recognized the need
for this exemption during the commit-
tee's deliberations. The gentleman
from New York has played a crucial
role in the development of this amend-
ment and I am pleased to have him
join me in offering it.
In addition, I appreciate the cooper-
ative spirit of the sponsor of H.R.
1524, Mr. WILLIAMS, who recognizes
the need for flexibility in the protec-
tive security area. Despite our philo-
sophical differences over the need for
H.R. 1524, it is indeed reassuring that
we have been able to cast aside those
differences to fashion an amendment
which allows flexibility while still con-
taining necessary safeguards for the
employees.
Even if you believe there is a need
for this bill's prohibitions, you must
realize that there are certain interests
which are so sensitive to both the em-
ployer and the society at large that wQ
must provide some additional leeway
to that employer. The bill already rec-
ognizes a need to accommodate certain
sensitive concerns by exempting gov-
ernmental employees and contractors
to the CIA, FBI, and the National Se-
curity Agency. But our national securi-
ty goes well beyond the operations of
the Federal Government and is affect-
ed by strictly private-sector functions
such as the transportation of currency
and the operation of certain facilities.
such as airports. The threat of terror-
ism alone warrants our permitting ad-
ditional flexibility in establishing secu-
rity measures in these areas.
The need for my amendment is un-
derscored by a recent survey showing
that 65 percent of the total losses in
the armored car industry are a result
of internal theft. To give an idea of
what this means in dollars, that indus-
try transports, counts, and stores over
$15 billion a day. In addition, employ-
ees in the protective security industry
frequently are required to carry guns,
which is almost always the case with
armored car drivers. As custodians of a
customer's money and protector of his
interests, the industry has an obliga-
tion to do everything in its power to
attempt to recruit and hire employees
whose honesty and integrity is beyond
question.
The vulnerability of the security in-
dustry was illustrated by an incident
which recently occurred in Connecti-
cut, where preemployment polygraph-
ing is outlawed. The FBI arrested
members of the Puerto Rican terrorist
organization-the Macheros-and
charged them with an $8 million rob-
bery by planting a member of their
group as a Wells Fargo armored car
driver. The money has since been
traced to Cuba where it is now beyond
recovery.
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
March 12, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 1061
Since the guard in this case had no
prior criminal record, the only way of
detecting his motives for applying
would have been through the use of
the polygraph. Indeed, as was learned
from testimony received from a repre-
sentative of the industry, applicants
with illegitimate motives are usually
deterred from even applying by the
mere existence of the polygraph.
As I have mentioned, the bill itself
recognizes that there can be instances
where the use of polygraphs is appro-
priate. Indeed, the House as a whole
recognized this necessity when it over-
whelmingly, (333 to 71), adopted an
amendment to the defense authoriza-
tion bill requiring the use of poly-
graphs for counterintelligence pur-
poses.
My amendment simply expands
upon this by recognizing that, regard-
less of any doubts one has regarding
the use of polygraphs, there are cer-
tain situations where life and property
are so extremely vulnerable that we
must permit companies to take reason-
able precautions. When these situa-
tions include such activities as the
guarding of nuclear facilities and the
transporting of millions of dollars, the
utmost caution is essential.
To address concerns that the exemp-
tion would be so broad as to cover low-
priority security functions, my amend-
ment contains an important limita-
tion. It only allows polygraphs to be
administered to employees engaged in
the protection of currency, negotiable
securities, precious commodities or in-
struments, proprietary information, or
facilities, materials, or operations
having a significant impact on our na-
tional security or the health or safety
of a State or locality. The definition of
such facilities would be provided by
the Secretary of Labor through regu-
lations issued within 60 days after en-
actment.
In further defining these interests
through regulations, I emphasize that
the language in the amendment is de-
signed to be inclusive and broadly con-
strued. Therefore, we do not expect
the Secretary in his regulations to
limit the exemption to just those fa-
cilities listed in the amendment. In ad-
dition the definition of "proprietary
information" shall include documents
which are essential for the functioning
of a business.
Finally, my amendment contains a
necessary safeguard to ensure that in-
nocent individuals are not injured
through the use of a polygraph. It
would prohibit exempted employers
from denying employment, firing, or
taking any other employment action
solely on the basis of the results of the
polygraph. In the committee's hear-
ings we received testimony from the
protective security industry and others
indicating that this Is the standard
practice for employers who use poly-
graphs in a responsible manner.
We must not forget trait, ultimately,
it is the average citizen who relies on
the dependability and integrity of the
protective security industry. Let's
make sure they have the resources to
live up to those expectations.
Mr. Chairman, this is a common-
sense approach to the use of the poly-
graph.
Mr. HILER. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. HILER. I would ask the gentle-
woman, her amendment seems reason-
able, but I wonder is the polygraph
more accurate when it deals with
Brinks car operators than it is when it
deals with people in manufacturing or
people that are tellers in banks?
Mrs. ROUKEMA. No. I would agree
with the point that the gentleman is
making, and indeed I have opposed
this legislation for precisely that
reason.
However, it is important to under-
stand that this amendment is an im-
provement and it also makes the point
that there are reasonable exceptions.
Mr. HILER. Yes.
If the gentlewoman will yield fur-
ther, I am astonished that the authors
of this bill are accepting exemptions.
If a polygraph does not work for man-
ufacturing enterprises in the United
States, I am not sure why it works for
national security or why it works for
guarding nuclear facilities or anything
else. I am just bewildered that the au-
thors of the bill are accepting all these
amendments.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the gentle-
woman for yielding, and inasmuch as
the gentleman has in effect asked a
question of the author of the legisla-
tion and I am the author, let me say
that the reason we are willing to
accept this amendment is because it is
very necessary, in the judgment of the
sponsor of the amendment as it is to
the sponsor of the legislation, to estab-
lish symmetry between what we allow
in the public sector in the way of poly-
graphing and what we allow in the pri-
vate sector.
The gentlewoman is correct. Securi-
ty guards who guard our nuclear pow-
erplants, our hydroelectric facilities,
our huge shipments of code A drugs,
our negotiable securities are guarding
the health and safety of America, and
we allow them to be polygraphed.
We think that establishes some sym-
metry with what the FBI, the CIA,
and the National Security Agency are
allowed to do.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the amendment.
(Mr. BIAGGI asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, I am
proud to join the gentlelady from New
Jersey who has worked diligently with
me in developing this language in of-
fering this amendment. Simply put, it
recognizes the highly sensitive nature
of the security industry and provides
certain segments of this industry with
the responsible and necessary use of
the polygraph, while providing a
number of carefully crafted and very
important labor protections.
The Roukema-Biaggi amendment
would allow a private employer to use
the polygraph for prehiring and
posthiring purposes, but only in those
cases where employees would be re-
sponsible for high priority security
functions, such as protecting public
utilities, hazardous materials ship-
ments, public transportation, curren-
cy, negotiable securities, precious com-
modities, or proprietary information.
Further, the amendment specifically
states that the exemption provided for
the security industry "shall not dimin-
ish an employer's obligation to comply
with applicable State and local law,
and any negotiated collective-bargain-
ing agreement, which limit or prohibit
the use of lie detector tests on such
employees."
Finally, the amendment would guar-
antee that the "analysis of lie detector
charts" are not used aS the sole basis
for discharging, dismissing, disciplin-
ing, or denying employment or promo-
tion. The Department of Labor would
be required to ensure that these provi-
sions are effectively enforced and that
the rights of the employee under
these provisions are fully protected.
Mr. Chairman, as a 23-year veteran
of law enforcement, I believe there are
certain very specific situations where
the polygraph can and should be used
to help prevent crimes, and to detect
criminals once a. crime has been com-
mitted. This is one of those times.
After all, the private security industry
provides security for nuclear power fa-
cilities, the Federal Reserve, the stra-
tegic petroleum reserve, commercial
and industrial firms, the U.S. Postal
Service, the banking industry, hospi-
tals and airports, to name just some of
their responsibilities.
Certainly, a crime at any of these fa-
cilities could have devastating conse-
quences. That is why they deserve the
same special consideration being given
by this bill to Government employers
and private contractors dealing with
intelligence or counterintelligence
with the CIA, NSA. Department of
Defense, and the FBI.
One final note, Mr. Chairman. Histo-
ry tells us that the polygraph test is
neither overused nor abused by the
private security services industry. The
test, itself, costs hundreds of dollars to
administer responsibly and is used on
a very selective basis. For example, the
industry's largest firm, which employs
some 55,000 security personnel, has
testified before our committee that in
1984 they gave only 700 preemploy-
ment polygraph tests, 150 tests related
to missing funds and 50 random tests
to those employees in highly sensitive
areas. Further, they stated that in no
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
H 1062 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
case is a person denied employment or
dismissed solely on the results of a
polygraph examination.
Mr. Chairman, for anyone here in-
terested in fighting crime, this is a
good amendment. For anyone here in-
terested in protecting the rights of
labor, this is a good amendment. And,
for anyone here interested in protect-
ing the security interests of our
Nation, this is a good amendment. I
strongly urge its approval.
^ 1920
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
woman from New Jersey [Mrs. ROUKE-
MA].
The amendment was agreed to:
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ECKART OF OHIO
Mr. ECKART of Ohio. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. EcKART of
Ohio: Page 8. after line 15, insert the follow-
ing new section (and redesignate the suc-
ceeding sections accordingly):
SEC. 7. DISCLOSURE TO EXAMINED EMPLOYEE OR
PROSPECT11'F: EMPLOYEE.
It shall be unlawful for any person who
administers a lie detector test on behalf of
any employer (other than an employer de-
scribed in section 6(a), 6(b), or 6(c)) to fail
to provide to the individual examined,
within a reasonable time upon the request
of that individual, a copy of written reports,
recommendations, and charts which are pre-
pared for, or made available to. such em-
ployer on the basis of the results of such
test.
Mr. ECKART of Ohio (during the
reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unani-
mous consent that the amendment be
considered as read and printed in the
RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
(Mr. ECKART of Ohio asked and
was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. ECKART of Ohio. Mr. Chair-
man, I am 'offering an amendment
which would require that the employ-
ee or prospective employee who has
been polygraphed under the exemp-
tions provided in this bill, have the
right to obtain copies of the test re-
sults as well as any written reports or
recommendations based ,on the results
of that exam.
I am offering this amendment in
order to provide protection to the em-
ployees who may be required to
submit to a polygraph exam. The sci-
entific accuracy of these instruments
have never been proven. As a result, I
think it is vital that we provide every
employee with the recourse to exam-
ine their test responses and determine
whether they have been wrongfully
accused of lying during the course of
their polygraph examination.
I don't believe that my colleagues
should have a problem with this
amendment. My colleagues from Geor-
gia and Florida, who have introduced
legislation to require the licensing of
March.12, 1986
polygraph examiners, provided a simi- Mr. BROOMFIELD Mr. Chairman,
lar protection in their bill. the amendment I am offering would
The exemptions we have accepted extend the national security exemp-
today, though limited in scope, still tion, already in this bill, by allowing
provide a congressional approval of po- our vital electric utilities to continue
lygraphing in some cases. I do not be- polygraph testing of certain employ-
lieve that the adoption of these ees, prospective employees, and em-
amendments signify congressional ap- ployees of contractors who have or
proval of the polygraph as an instru- would have direct access to the com-
ment for all employment testing, but puters, generators, power lines, or
rather a realization that there are other facilities or equipment related to
some very specific cases, such as when the production, transmission, or distri-
our Nation's security is at stake, to bution of electric energy.
allow the industry to use this tool as It is a narrowly drawn amendment
part of preemployment screening or that has been developed with the co-
an investigation. operation of Congressman WILLIAMS
Because we allow these limited ex- and his staff, as well as the various in-
emptions, but still do not have full vestor-owned utility associations.
faith that the polygraph is properly Their contributions to this amend-
registering the responses of the exam- ment have been enormous and I wish
inee, it is important that we provide to express my appreciation for their
examinees with the ability to obtain help.
copies of materials which have been We are all aware of the important
presented to their employer or pro- role that electric power-whether it is
spective employer. generated from nuclear powerplants
I urge my colleagues to adopt this or from other sources-plays in the
amendment. well-being of the American people and
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on in our national security. Because of
the amendment offered by the gentle- this important role it is critical that
man from Ohio [Mr. ECKART]. we maintain a reliable supply to the
The amendment was agreed to. Nation.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BROOMFIELD However, all of us are aware of the
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, ugly specter of terrorism in the world
I offer an amendment. today, and our utility companies and
The Clerk read as follows: this Nation, unfortunately, are not in-
Amendment offered by Mr. BROOMFIELD:
Page 8, after line 15, insert the following
new subsection:
(e) PUBLIC UTILITIES EXEMPTION.-(1)
Subject to paragraph (3), this Act shall not
apply with respect to-
(A) an employee or prospective employee
of a public utility engaged in the produc-
tion, distribution, or transmission of electric
energy; or
(B) an employee of a contractor with any
such utility.
(2) The exemption provided under para-
graph (1) shall not diminish an employer's
obligation to comply with-
(A) applicable State and local law, and
(B) any negotiated collective bargaining
agreement, which limit or prohibit the use
of lie detector tests on such employees.
(3) The exemption provided under this
subsection shall not apply if-
(A) the results of an analysis of lie detec-
tor charts are used as the sole basis upon
which an employee or prospective employee
is discharged, dismissed, disciplined in any
manner, or denied employment or promo-
tion; or
(B) the test is administered to an employ-
ee or prospective employee who does not or
would not have direct access to computers, Mr. BROOMFIELD. I yield to the
generators, power lines, or other facilities or author of the bill, the gentleman from
equipment related to the production, trans- Montana.
mission, or distribution of electric energy. Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the gentle-
Mr. BROOMFIELD (during the man from Michigan for yielding to me.
reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unani- Speaking as the author of the bill, as a
mous consent that the amendment be sponsor of the bill, we are glad to
considered as read and printed in the accept this amendment because again
RECORD. it extends the exemption to power-
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection generating resources. It is in the best
to the request of the gentleman from interests of the security of this coun-
Michigan? try that we protect large hydroelectric
There was no objection. plants and nuclear powerplants from
(Mr. BROOMFIELD asked and was sabotage. That is what the gentleman
given permission to revise and extend is trying to accomplish. I note that the
his remarks.) gentleman's amendment has the en-
vulnerable to them. Our power supply
depends upon interconnected net-
works covering vast geographic areas.
An act of sabotage or terrorism in one
major generating facility or switching
station could cause power outages in
several States. Further, many of our
power companies also own and operate
nuclear powerplants which must also
be protected. These plants, according
to the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion, have already been the targets of
more than a dozen deliberate acts of
damage between 1980 and 1982.
Mr. Chairman, the electric utilities
exercise great caution and care in se-
lecting employees for these sensitive
facilities, and the polygraph and simi-
lar methods serve as one of the tools
they utilize in their checks.
I urge my colleagues to allow them
to continue to use this tool to protect
their operations and us by accepting
my amendment.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
March 12, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 1063
dorsement of the Edison Electric Insti-
tute, the Association of Investor-
owned Electric Utilities, and the Amer-
ican Nuclear Energy Council. I am
glad to join them and the gentleman
in supporting his amendment.
EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE,
Washington, DC, March 11, 1986.
Hon. PAT WILLIAMS,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
DEAR PAT: The Polygraph Protection Act
(H.R. 1524) is scheduled for House consider-
ation on Wednesday, March 12. The pur-
pose of the legislation is to limit the use of
lie detector and similar tests by employers
engaged in interstate commerce.
In a previous letter, I outlined the nation-
al security reasons why the electric utility
industry must retain the option of using
such tests. Congressman William S. Broom-
field will offer an amendment to accomplish
this purpose. The amendment exempting
electric utilities is drafted narrowly, and
applies only to employees of electric utilities
engaged in the production, transmission, or
distribution of electric power. The amend-
ment has the support of Congressman Pat
Williams, the primary sponsor of H.R. 1524.
With the inclusion of the amendment ex-
empting electric utilities, the Edison Elec-
tric Institute supports H.R. 1524.
Sincerely,
THOMAS R. KUHN.
AMERICAN NUCLEAR ENERGY COUNCIL,
Washington, DC, March 11, 1986.
Hon. PAT WILLIAMS,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN WILLIAMS: On behalf
of the nuclear utility members of the Coun-
cil, I am writing to express support for the
Broomfield amendment to H.R. 1524, The
Polygraph Protection Act of 1985.
This amendment establishes a necessary
exemption for electric utilities in order to
protect public health and safety as well as
national security.
I am pleased to learn that you have
agreed to support the Broomfield amend-
ment. As amended by the Broomfield
amendment, the Council supports H.R.
1524.
Sincerely,
ee of any financial institution (as defined in tant because we are dealing with fi-
section 5312(a)(2) of title 31, United States nancial institutions, banks, people's
Code). money, we are dealing with whether or
(2) This subsection shall not preempt any not we are going to be able to have a
State or local law which prohibits or re- lie-detector test to give them one more
stricts the use of lie detector tests. tool to screen employees just as we
(Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was have allowed the lie-detector test to be
given permission to revise and extend used for certain industries like phar-
his remarks.) maceuticals, armored, cars, and securi-
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, my
amendment is very simple. It exempts
all financial institutions from this act.
It exempts banks, credit unions, it ex-
empts savings and loans, it exempts se-
curities dealers, it exempts anybody
who is defined as a financial institu-
tion under our laws. We have already
listed a number of exemptions to the
Polygraph Act tonight.
We just a few moments ago passed
an exemption for armored cars and
drivers of armored cars that carry the
cash around town for our banks. But
we have not exempted the banks. It
does not make any sense to me not to
exempt the banks if we are going to
exempt the armored-car drivers. The
fact of the matter is we have exempt-
ed some drug people too, exempted
the pharmaceutical companies, but we
have not exempted the banks and the
banks who are the employers of the
tellers who are the ones in the front
line to guard us against the money
launderers who take the drug money
from drug offenses.
It seems to me if we are going to
have a logical bill in this case that if
we have done the exemptions we just
did for the pharmaceutical companies,
for the armored-car drivers, for the se-
curity guards, we ought to exempt the
banks and financial institutions.
Now why, beyond the fact that they
fall into a similar category, do we
exempt them? In the first place finan-
cial institutions operate with other
people's money on the basis of trust.
While most financial institutions have
regulations covering actions that they
may take in commerce with depositors'
money there are no regulations that
cover the conduct and integrity of pro-
spective employees. For banks, over 80
percent of losses occur from internal
theft. In 1983 financial losses to banks
from internal theft amounted to over
$282 million. In 1984 that increased to
over $382 million, and that is while
they were using polygraph tests to try
to screen prospective employees. That
is not just some of the banks' money
we are talking about that is being lost
here, these millions of dollars; that is
money from somebody's checking ac-
ty guards.
Money disappears in banks all the
time. It disappears because people
steal it, those who are working for the
banks. That is where the problem is.
That is why we need a check on them.
The fact of the matter is that not
only do people steal cash from banks,
they securities. Not only that, but the
biggest single way you steal money
today in the financial world is with a
computer, just being an employee who
has access to press a botton at one of
these institutions to transfer money
from one account to another or over-
seas or wherever. And almost anybody
who has access as an employee of a
bank has access to these computers to
play games with whether it is in the
middle of the night or otherwise.
I submit to you that at the forefront
of those institutions in this country in
the private world that need the little
protection that public policy allows,
we have these financial institutions
and we need an exemption for them
for that reason.
But it is not just a question of steal-
ing money or pushing a button or
doing what else might be done in a
normal financial transaction that
bothers me. Right now we have mil-
lions of dollars, millions of dollars
every year that are laundered through
our financial institutions by drug deal-
ers looking for a way to cover up the
sources of their illegal transactions,
looking for a way to come up with
money that is clean and looking good.
Who do they go to for that? Well, they
go to a lot of people but not too un-
usual to have them go to a local teller
in branch X, Y, or Z of bank X. And
when they do that and they find a
person who is susceptible to corrup-
tion, it is very easy to launder that
money, in the millions of dollars that
we are talking about, to avoid the
Bank Secrecy Act, to avoid any law we
have now on the books and it will
make it that much more difficult
when we come out with a bill on the
floor this year or later to have a rea-
sonable money laundering crime that
can be enforced under those situa-
EDWARD M. DAVIS.
Mr. HILER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BROOMFIELD. I yield to the
gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. HILER. Mr. Chairman, is this
yet another exemption from this bill,
this polygraph which is such a danger-
ous, dastardly piece of equipment? Do
we have yet another exemption?
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
the amendment speaks for itself.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Michigan [Mr. BROOM-
FIELD].
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MC COLLUM
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. MCCOLLUM:
Page 8, after line 15, insert the following
new subsection:
(e) FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EXEMPTION.-
(1) This Act shall not prohibit the use of a
lie detector test on any officer or employee
or prospective officer or prospective employ-
count, that is somebody's life savings tions.
we are talking about. While many of I submit to my colleagues that above
those losses are insured, the costs of all else tonight if we are going to pass
those thefts occur to all depositors this bill we need an exemption for fi-
and not all losses are insured. nancial institutions so they can screen
Second, let us look at the fact that the employees that have the trust of
banks deal in large amounts of cash. the money of this country. We need it
That is why we are covering armored- desperately and I urge my colleagues
car drivers in the first place. Cash is that they adopt this amendment that
important, we ought to be concerned I am offering tonight and we get on
about that. with the reasonableness which is in
My colleagues, I think this is an im- this bill from the standpoint of ex-
portant amendment: It is very impor- emptions. This is another exemption
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
H 1064 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 12, 1986
as my colleague from Indiana said. It I think we are getting a little bit car- the institutions that carry the money
is a very important exemption, and I ried away. I think the Congress is an away.
urge the passage of the McCollum institution that oversees more money Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman,
amendment, please. than probably many of these groups will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I we are talking about. Someone is going Mr. HILER. I yield to the gentleman
move to strike the requisite number of to come up with an amendment that from Florida.
words, and I rise to oppose this amend- perhaps maybe every Congressman
ment. should be tested whether or not they Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I
We have accepted most of the have any Communist ties. I think we would like to make a point on the tleman
amendments, I guess all of the amend- are trying to eradicate the basic meas- man time, and I thank the gentle-
ments that have been offered on this ure that is here. And I think we are man for yielding.
bill today. But we cannot accept an going to come up with enough exemp- The author of this legislation just
amendment to include all of the em- tions that there will be no intent to said we covered all of this and we pro-
ployees of a financial institution. Let the original bill, that I think has the tect your money because we accepted
me tell you what that does. The defi- support of the Members of Congress. an amendment to cover guards who
nition of "financial institution" reads Mr. Chairman, I would just like to guard the money. Guards who guard
this way: All private banks, all com- say that we are starting to deviate. the buildings with pistols in their
merical banks, all thrift institutions, This is not a drug issue, a dollar issue, pockets or carry the money in trucks
all credit-card systems, all insurance a crime issue, a Republican issue, a are not guarding much of our money
companies, all pawnbrokers, all loan Democrat issue; it is a rights issue. We today. They are protecting some time-
companies, all telegraph companies, are starting to get to the point with honored 1920's bank robbery, protect-
all travel agencies. That is the defini- accepting all these exemptions that we ing the public from that. But most of
tion of "financial institutions." are starting to infringe upon those the money transactions today and the
Now if you are for strapping in all rights. crime with money is done with a com-
the little telegraph operators to the Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amend- puter inside those institutions. The
lie-detector gadget, you are for the ment. only way you can protect the money
McCollum amendment. If you are for Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I of the people of America today is with
strapping in all the tellers, you are for want to tell my colleagues that we just the McCollum amendment, protecting
the McCollum amendment. accepted an amendment that says if the rights of the employers in these fi-
But if you are for that, you cannot you are a guard dealing with currency, nancial institutions to examine in ad-
possible be for this bill. negotiable securities, precious com- vance the employees they are going to
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, modities, you can be made to undergo hire to find out if they have a record
will the gentleman yield? this lie detector examination. That is of theft in the past, if they have a
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, I would be OK; this goes far too far. record that tends to mean they could
glad to yield to my friend. Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the be blackmailed into going along with a
Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gen- gentleman yield? money laundering machine that some-
tleman for yielding. Mr. WILLIAMS. 'I yield to my body proposes to them, that tends to
That is one of the fallacies of the friend, the gentleman from Illinois. show that they would be a likely sub-
bill. I do not think there is any ques- Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank ject to go ahead and push that com-
tion but that the gentleman has made my friend for yielding. puter buttom and embezzle some
a good point. But the only way when Mr. Chairman, I would just like to money or transfer it somewhere.
you start drawing these lines, and that suggest to my friend from Florida that Even with that, we cannot expect to
is what that gentleman and others out the litany of institutions that are cov- protect it all, as the figures I gave ear-
here are doing today, you draw hard ered under this definition is so exten- her show. But with the polygraph, at
lines. You cannot draw easy lines. Fi- sive that, if I were the gentleman, I least we will have some degree of pro-
nancial institutions by definition do would advance my cause to associate tection with what we have today. Strip
cover all those people. They are in- myself with the remarks of the gentle- the polygraph away, the banks and
volved with passing the money of this man from Montana. the public have no protection, none,
country, they are the ones where the Mr. HILER. Mr. Chairman, I move from people who may be hired who
traveler's checks are, they are the ones to strike the last word, and I rise in have the thought in mind of going out
where the bank drafts are, and they support of the amendment. and stealing moneys while they work
are the ones where the computer (Mr. HILER asked and was given at the bank.
pushes millions of dollars around. You permission to revise and extend his re- Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentle-
cannot have a narrow definition of a marks.) man for taking some time to make this
financial institution and you cannot Mr. HILER. Mr. Chairman, it seems point. The McCollum amendment is
narrow this thing down any more than to make eminent sense to me that if absolutely essential for the protection
that without providing a reasonable we exempt the people who carry the of the public.
exemption for the polygraph. money away from the financial insti- Mr. SUNDQUIST. Mr. Chairman,
Mr. WILLIAMS. Reclaiming my tutions, should we not exempt the will the gentleman yield?
time, this is the business of this House people who collect the money at the
to draw lines and with this bill we financial institutions. Mr. HILER. I yield to the gentleman
have drawn the line I think, but we Money comes in many forms today. from Tennessee.
should not allow all the pawnbrokers, It comes in plastic cards. In comes in Mr. SUNDQUIST. Mr. Chairman, I
telegraph operators, and the little gals wire transfers. It comes in travelers thank the gentleman for yielding.
sitting in the credit-card companies to checks. It comes in greenbacks and it Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to me
undergo lie-detector tests. comes in hard currency. as I sat and observed the debate that
^ 1935 This amendment makes eminent we have moved-and incidentally, I
good sense. I think the bill is a bad support the gentleman's amendment. I
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, bill, but if we are going to have the think it makes sense, and I think the
will the gentleman yield? bill, if we are going to have many ex- points the gentleman makes are accu-
Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to my emptions already, this exemption rate. But it is interesting that we are
friend, the gentleman from Ohio. clearly is one that ought to be allowed. no longer debating the merits of poly-
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I When we talk about the life savings graph. Now we are talking about who
thank the gentleman for yielding. and the cash flows of businesses and is important enough to have protec-
Mr. Chairman, I support the posi- people and corporate America, we tion under polygraph, as we should.
tion of the sponsor of the bill and rise ought to be just as concerned about As we are debating this, we have
in opposition to this particular amend- the safety of the institutions that take shifted now, as the debate should have
ment. care of those functions as we are about shifted. The gentleman from Florida
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
March 12, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
has pointed out how important this is
that they be included.
On the other hand, we still have not
answered the question of where do we
draw the line. The author of the legis-
lation said that we have a responsibil-
ity to have a fine line. I would submit
that fine line is blurred, because of the
debate of the opinion of the gentle-
man from Florida, the gentleman has
pointed out how important it is. We
are no longer talking about whether or
not it is dependable, but who ought to
have exemption from the proposed
legislation.
The small business people, the mom
and pop shops, are the ones who are
going to suffer when we end up with
this, because they are the only ones
left who are going to be excluded.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest we
vote for this amendment and then
close the entire piece of legislation.
Mr. HILER. Mr. Chairman, if the
polygraph can work effectively for se-
curity guards, clearly it can work ef-
fectively for financial institutions.
Mr. Chairman, I support the gentle-
man's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Florida [Mr. McCoLLUMI.
The question was taken, and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. WILLIAMS)
there were-ayes 60, noes 47.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I
demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were-ayes, 194 noes
217, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 461
AYES-194
Anderson
Dowdy
Jones (OK)
Archer
Dreier
Jones (TN)
Armey
Duncan
Kasich
Badham
Eckert (NY)
Kindness
Barnard
Edwards (OK)
Kolbe
Bartlett
Emerson
Kramer
Barton
English
Lagomarsino
Bateman
Erdreich
Leath (TX)
Bennett
Evans (IA)
Lent
Bereuter
Fawell
Lewis (CA)
Bilirakis
Fiedler
Lewis (FL)
Bliley
Fields
Lightfoot
Boulter
Fish
Livingston
Broomfield
Franklin
Lloyd
Brown (CO)
Frenzel
Lott
Burton (IN)
Frost
Lowery (CA)
Byron
Fuqua
Lujan
Callahan
Gallo
Lungren
Carney
Gekas
Mack
Carper
Gingrich
MacKay
Chandler
Goodling
Marlenee
Chapman
Gradison
Martin (NY)
Chappell
Green
Mazzoli
Chappie
Gregg
McCain
Cheney
Gunderson
McCandless
Coats
Hall (OH)
McCollum
Cobey
Hammerschmidt McEwen
Coble
Hansen
McGrath
Coleman (MO)
Hartnett
McKernan
Combest
Heftel
McMillan
Craig
Hendon
Meyers
Crane
Henry
Michel
Daniel
Hiler
Miller (OH)
Dannemeyer
Hillis
Molinari
Darden
Holt
Monson
Daub
Hopkins
Montgomery
de la Garza
Huckaby
Moore
DeLay
Hughes
Moorhead
Derrick
Hunter
Morrison (WA)
DeWine
Hutto
Myers
Dickinson
Hyde
Nelson
DioGuardi
Ireland
Nichols
O'Brien
Schroeder
Stratton
Oxley
Schuette
Stump
Packard
Schulze
Sundquist
Panetta
Sensenbrenner
Sweeney
Parris
Shaw
Swindall
Pashayan
Shumway
Tallon
Petri
Shuster
Tauzin
Porter
Siljander
Thomas (CA)
Pursell
Sisisky
Thomas (GA)
Quillen
Skeen
Torricelli
Ray
Slaughter
Valentine
Regula
Smith (NE)
Vander Jagt
Ritter
Smith, Denny
Vucanovich
Roberts
(OR)
Walker
Roemer
Smith, Robert
Watkins
Rogers
(NH)
Whitehurst
Rose
Smith, Robert
Whitley
Roth
(OR)
Whittaker
Roukema
Snyder
Wolf
Rowland (CT)
Solomon
Wortley
Rowland (GA)
Spence
Young (AK)
Saxton
St Germain
Young (FL)
Schaefer
Stangeland
Zschau
Schneider
Stenholm
NOES-217
Ackerman
Garcia
Oberstar
Akaka
Gaydos
Obey
Alexander
Gejdenson
Olin
Andrews
Gibbons
Ortiz
Annunzio
Oilman
Owens
Anthony
Glickman
Pease
Applegate
Gonzalez
Penny
Atkins
Gordon
Pepper
AuCoin
Gray (IL)
Perkins
Bates
Gray (PA)
Pickle
Bedell
Guarini
Price
Beilenson
Hamilton
Rahall
Bentley
Hawkins
Rangel
Berman
Hayes
Reid
Bevill
Hefner
Richardson
Biaggi
Hertel
Ridge
Boehlert
Horton
Rinaldo
Boggs
Howard
Robinson
Boland
Boyer
Rodino
Boner (TN)
Hubbard
Roe
Bonior (MI)
Jacobs
Rostenkowski
Bonker
Jenkins
Roybal
Borski
Johnson
Russo
Bosco
Jones (NC)
Sabo
Boucher
Kanjorski
Savage
Boxer
Kaptur
Scheuer
Breaux
Kastenmeier
Schumer
Brooks
Kemp
Seiberling
Bruce
Kennelly
Sharp
Bryant
Kildee
Shelby
Burton (CA)
Kleczka
Sikorski
Bustamante
Kolter
Skelton
Carr
Kostmayer
Slattery
Clay
Lantos
Smith (FL)
Clinger
Leach (IA)
Smith (IA)
Coelho
Lehman (CA)
Smith (NJ)
Coleman (TX)
Lehman (FL)
Snowe
Conte
Leland
Solarz
Conyers
Levin (MI)
Spratt
Cooper
Levine (CA)
Staggers
Coughlin
Lipinski
Stallings
Courter
Long
Stark
Coyne
Lowry (WA)
Stokes
Crockett
Luken
Strang
Daschle
Lundine
Studds
Davis
Manton
Swift
Dellums
Markey
Synar
Dicks
Martin (IL)
Tauke
Dingell
Martinez
Torres
Dixon
Matsui
Trafleant
Donnelly
Mavroules
Traxler
Dorgan (ND)
McCloskey
Udall
Downey
McDade
Vento
Durbin
McHugh
Visclosky
Dwyer
McKinney
Volkmer
Dymally
Mica
Walgren
Dyson
Mikulski
Waxman
Early
Miller (CA)
Weber
Eckart (OH)
Miller (WA)
Weiss
Edgar
Mineta
Wheat
Edwards (CA)
Mitchell
Whitten
Evans (IL)
Moakley
Williams
Fascell
Mollohan
Wilson
Fazio
Moody
Wirth
Feighan
Morrison (CT)
Wise
Flippo
Mrazek
Wolpe
Florio
Murphy
Wright
Foglietta
Murtha
Wyden
Foley
Natcher
Yates
Ford (MI)
Neal
Yatron
Ford (TN)
Nielson
Young (MO)
Fowler
Nowak
Prank
Oakar
H 1065
NOT VOTING-23
Addabbo
Gephardt
Madigan
Aspin
Grotberg
McCurdy
Barnes
Hall, Ralph
Rudd
Brown (CA)
Hatcher
Taylor
Broyhill
Jeffords
Towns
Campbell
LaFalce
Weaver
Collins
Latta
Wylie
Doman (CA)
Loeffler
^ 2000
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Taylor for, with Mrs. Collins against.
Mr. Loeffler for, with Mr. Weaver against.
Mr. Campbell for, with Mr. Traxler
against.
Mr. Rudd for, with Mr. Dymally against.
Messrs. HEFNER, GILMAN, and
VOLKMER changed their votes from
"aye" to "no."
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was an-
nounced as above recorded.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. YOUNG OF
FLORIDA
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. YOUNG of
Florida: Page 8, after line 15, insert the fol-
lowing new subsection:
(e) Children's day care center exemption-
(1) This Act shall not prohibit the use of a
lie detector test on any employee or pro-
spective employee of any children's day care
center.
(2) This subsection shall not preempt any
State or local law which prohibits or re-
stricts the use of lie detector tests.
(f) Nursing home exemption-
(1) This Act shall not prohibit the use of a
lie detector test on any prospective employ-
ee of any nursing home facility.
(2) This subsection shall not preempt any
State or local law which prohibits or re-
stricts the use of lie detector tests.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, of the amendments that I have
prefiled, this is the only one that I
intend to offer.
In view of the fact that the commit-
tee has accepted a number of amend-
ments that exempted certain types of
industry, I would ask the committee to
very seriously consider accepting this
amendment to exempt from the prohi-
bition those industries dealing with
children and day-care centers and
America's senior citizens in nursing
homes. These are people who cannot
take care of themselves; people who
need someone to be their champion.
Let the House of Representatives to-
night take care of America's kids and
America's senior citizens. I do not have
to relate and I am not going to relate
some of the terrible, terrible stories
that we have read about in recent
months about how children and senior
Americans have been so terribly af-
fected by some people in whose care
they were charged.
This is a good amendment; it is cer-
tainly in keeping with the protection
of people that the chairman of the
committee talked about before. I hope
the committee will accept it.
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
H 1066 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 12, 1986
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Well, I cer- the jurisdiction for the ever-increasing
the gentleman yield? tainly appreciate the gentleman's com- use of polygraph tests, and you can be
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to ments. assured that the Federal Government
the gentleman. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will will not be far behind in insisting that
O 2010 the gentleman yield again? all Federal employees, too, should be
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, I yield. subject to these tests. The process
Mr. WILLIAMS. Do I understand Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I which we have engaged in today is a
that the gentleman's amendment need to understand the gentleman's classic example of good intentions
would allow of if the employer wished intention. Is the gentleman referring having run amok.
require the lie detecting of all teach- to those employees in child care cen- Mr. ECKART of Ohio. Mr. Chair-
ers who worked with children in day- ters and nursing homes that have man, I move to strike the requisite
care centers, the janitor, the secretary, direct access to the children and the number of words.
the person that answers the tele- senior citizens? May I engage in a colloquy with the
phone? Mr. YOUNG of Florida. That is my gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. My response intent. The concern expressed by my col-
is yes, anyone who would have access Mr. WILLIAMS. This gentleman will league, the gentleman from Montana,
to those children or anyone that accept the gentleman's amendment. concerning direct access and who
would have access to those senior citi- Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair- would be covered, if I may ask the gen-
zens lying unprotected in a nursing man, I thank the gentleman. tleman if after the words that appear,
home bed. Mr. WEISS. Mr. Chairman, I move "prospective employee," to insert the
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will to strike the requisite number of phrase in subsection (e)(1) "with
the gentleman yield further? words. I rise in opposition to the
sub-
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, I cer- amendment. section to children,"
direct and sub-
Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is secttio ion ( (f)(f)(1) "with access to
tainly will. running late. I would have no objec- nursing home residents."
Mr. WILLIAMS. Would all of the tion if in fact the sponsors of this bill, Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
people who worked in a nursing home, the managers, would decide to take it man, if the gentleman will yield, I ask
that is, the driver of the van, the up tomorrow at an earlier hour, to unanimous consent that the gentle-
Meals on Wheels people, the janitor, allow us to deal with it when we are man's modification be included as part
the custodian that puts up the flag, refreshed. It seems to me that we are of the original amendment.
would all those people have to under- dealing with a very, The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentle-
go a lie detector test? very critical sub- man please repeat the modification for
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Well, I do ject at this point. the Clerk's sake.
not believe that our intent is to go We started with the premise that
far, although our did accept o a these polygraph tests are unreliable, Mr. ECKART of Ohio. Mr. Chair-
that
that far, we an unscientific, and endanger the securi- man, after the words "prospective em-
amendment o exempt those they carried well-being, lives and careers of ployee" in subsection (e)(1) insert the
same people that
if I think the tprotection money. people who are subjected to them. phrase "with direct access to chil-
Well, life or a e child's r t well-being is a That has been the thrust of the argu- dren," and in subsection (f)(1) after
much more important than money. ment on this issue all along. the words "prospective employee"
Mr. mpor The reason that this legislation insert the phrase "with direct access
ing trying WILLIAMS, SWell, I am consider- - came forward was to try to provide to nursing home residents."
to the gentleman's how protection for American workers in The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
amendment, athe abutccess I with want to children know and the work place. Instead, what is begin- to the modification?
direct
senior the access
is. If the fling to happen by sort of a salami There was no objection.
gentleman is tactic is that we build in exemption The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
talking about giving a lie detector test after exemption after exemption. By report the modification to the amend-
to somebody who does not deal with the time we get through, we will have ment offered by the gentleman from
these people, then I think that it is a piece of legislation which in essence Florida [Mr. YOUNG].
too broadly drawn. authorizes, rather than restricts, the The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. No, sir; I use of polygraph tests. It passes a fa-
would say to the gentleman that is not vorable judgment on Modification to the amendment offered
our intent. It is only our intent to polygraphs. by Mr. YOUNG 'prospective Florida: In subsection
allow polygraph exams for those se wThe legislation would now say that (e)(1) after ter 'prospective employee' insert
alto lyg it is OK to subject people who work in "with direct access to children" and in sub-
with thectelderly in nursing ly with h children or who
homes. directly day-care centers to these tests. Why section (f)(1) after 'prospective employee'
not for people who work in grammar insert "with direct access to nursing home
Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Chairman, will schools? What is the magic cutoff? Is residents".
the gentleman yield? it kindergarten, first grade, or second The text of the amendment, as
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, I am grade? modified, is as follows:
happy to yield. I really do think, Mr. Chairman, Amendment offered by Mr. YOUNG of
Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Chairman, let that those who want this legislation Florida, as modified: Page 8, after line 15,
me salute the gentleman on his very, very badly have lost sight of how insert the following new subsection:
amendment. When I have been watch- this bill has been amended. It is no (e) Children's day care center exemption-
ing the debate and listening to it, I longer the bill it started out to be or (1) This Act shall not prohibit the use of a
was sorely tempted to offer an amend- was intended to be. lie detector test on any employee or pro-
ment along the lines of what the gen- I think the better part of wisdom at spective employee with direct access to chil-
tleman said. I think it would be highly this point, rather than to agree to dren of any children's day care center.
irresponsible for this Chamber having amendments which ultimately turn (2) This subsection shall not preempt any
exempted drivers of Brink's armored this legislation inside out, is to recog- State or local law which prohibits or re-e cars, having exempted a variety of nize that the climate and the tenor in ( stf) the Nursing uge o home medetector t-ts.
other people, and not exempt from the this body is such that you are accom- ((11)) This a not prohibit of this law the very people plishing exactly the opposite Act shall on ant prohibit the use of a
ppOSite of what lie detector test on any prospective employ-
who deal with our children, vulnera- you set out to do. ee with direct access to nursing home resi-
ble, weak, impressionable children, I hope that this amendment is de- dents of any nursing home facility.
and the old people the very same way. feated, and I would hope that the leg- (2) This subsection shall not preempt any
I think the gentleman has a very islation would be withdrawn because it State or local law which prohibits or re-
sensible, a very direct and I think an is in fact creating a worse situation striets the use of lie detector tests.
amendment which ought to be adopt- than existed before this bill came on The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
ed. the floor. If adopted, it will be used as the amendment offered by the gentle-
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
March, 12, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
man from Florida [Mr. YOUNG] as
modified.
The amendment, as modified, was
agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HUGHES
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. HUGHES: Page
8. after line 15, insert the following new sub-
section:
(e) EXEMPTION FOR LEGALIZED GAMING Es-
TABLISHMENTS.-(1) This Act shall not pro-
hibit the administration of a lie detector
test to any employee of a legalized gaming
establishment by such an establishment to
the extent that-
(A) such use is consistent with-
(i) applicable State and local law, and
(ii) any negotiated collective bargaining
agreement.
that limits or prohibits the use of lie detec-
tor tests on such employees: and
(B) the test is administered only to em-
ployees with responsibility for, and in con-
nection with. assuring compliance with sub-
chapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United
States Code.
(2) For purposes of this subsection the
term "legalized gaming establishment"
means any establishment operated under a
comprehensive State regulatory system reg-
ulating casino gaming or gambling.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed in the
RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
(Mr. HUGHES asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, my
amendment provides an exemption for
employees of casinos when those em-
ployees are involved in handling large
amounts of cash or guaranteeing
against money laundering through the
casinos.
I might say it does not apply to New
Jersey because New Jersey law would
not permit polygraphs.
It allows polygraphs to be used to
determine whether these employees
are in fact involved in laundering large
amounts of cash, but only where the
use of polygraphs is consistent with
State law and existing collective bar-
gaining agreements.
It is very narrowly drawn so it only
reaches the filing of those financial
transactions that the Department of
t he Treasury uses to determine wheth-
er laundering is taking place.
Casinos present a unique problem in
that we do not have the same struc-
ture as other financial institutions and
if in fact we are serious about trying to
focus in on money laundering, then
you have got to make sure there are
not. people inside the casino that
ashcan those filing requirements,
those reports, that in fact the Depart-
ment of the Treasury sees.
It is focused just to those reporting
requirements. No other areas are cov-
ered by this particular amendment.
I would hope that this amendment
for casinos and the reporting of finan-
cial transactions will be accepted by
the committee I think it is needed. We
are doing a lot of work in the area of
money laundering and it seems to me
that unless we close this loophole, it is
not going to help us pass new money
laundering legislation.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUGHES. I am happy to yield.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman,
would the gentleman agree to a unani-
mous consent request to add to his
amendment the following:
(A) the results of an analysis of lie detec-
tor charts are used as the sole basis upon
which an employee or prospective employee
is discharged, dismissed, disciplined in any
manner, or denied employment or promo-
tion.
Mr. HUGHES. The gentleman asks
if I will accept the language which in-
dicates:
(3) The exemption provided under this
subsection shall not apply if-
(A) the results of an analysis of lie detec-
tor charts are used as the sole basis upon
which an employee or prospective employee
is discharged, dismissed, disciplined in any
manner, or denied employment or promo-
tion.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent to accept that modification as
part of the original amendment that I
have offered. I understand the gentle-
man has offered this to each amend-
ment and I would accept that modifi-
cation.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
report the modification to the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES].
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to this amendment offered
by Mr. HUGHES: (3) The exemption provided
under this subsection shall not apply if-
(A) the results of an analysis of lie detec-
tor charts are used as the sole basis upon
which an employee or prospective employee
is discharged, dismissed, disciplined in any
manner, or denied employment or promo-
tion.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will yield, with the gen-
tleman's acceptance of that modifica-
tion, we have no objection to the
amendment.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman.
Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUGHES. I am happy to yield
to my colleague, the gentleman from
Kentucky.
Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Chairman, let
me first salute my friend, the gentle-
man from New Jersey, my chairman
on the Crime Subcommittee, for the
work the gentleman has done to pro-
mote law enforcement in this country
and particularly the bill on amending
the Gun Act of 1968, which will be on
this floor next week. I would commend
the gentleman's bill to the floor for se-
rious consideration.
But let me ask the gentleman this
question. I do not oppose the gentle-
man's amendment, but may I ask the
question, we are stretching this string
so far. In reading the newspapers, I
understand that money is laundered
through pizza cuts. It is laundered
through laundries. It is laundered
through arrangements for haulage of
freight and cargo.
The question is, the whole bill may
be a dissuasion for the very kind of in-
formation we need, which is on money
laundering.
So I will not oppose the gentleman's
amendment, obviously, but is there
any kind of an amendment that we
could offer that would allow us to go
across the board in trying to find
money laundering activities?
Mr. HUGHES. Well, that would be
very difficult and the gentleman
makes a very valid point. The problem,
however, with casinos is that large
sums of money are in fact laundered
and there are so many different de-
vices--
0 2025
I said to my colleagues that casinos
present a unique problem, and that is
one of the reasons why the regulations
have been changed to require certain
financial transactions to be recorded,
particularly where there are large
sums of cash which go through the ca-
sinos. This amendment is just targeted
to those areas. There is no sense in the
Federal Government conducting all of
these investigations, requiring all of
these reports to be filed if, in fact, a
dishonest employee can ash can these
reports and otherwise tamper with
these reports that come in when large
transactions go down in the casino.
Mr. MAZZOLI. If I could ask my
friend one final question. As one who
is so much of an expert in this area, is
there anything in this bill, if it were to
pass, that would impede our efforts to
control money laundering?
Mr. HUGHES. No; I think the law
enforcement community is probably
adequately protected in the legisla-
tion.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUGHES. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I
apologize, but we are having a great
deal of problem understanding the
gentleman's amendment because of
the noise level. I want to be able to
reconcile it with the action of this
body turning down an exemption for
financial institutions.
As I understand your amendment, it
is narrowly drawn with respect to
gambling institutions to those employ-
ees which may have an opportunity to
launder money, and it is directed at or-
ganized crime.
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
H 1068 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 12, 1986
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the manner, or denied employment or promo- in casinos threatens the safety and
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. tion. soundness of the economic system
HUGHES] has expired. Mr. HILER. Mr. Chairman, I move when that same type of activity in a
(On request of Mr. JEFFOxns and by to strike the requisite number of bank does not. I find that argument
unanimous consent, Mr. HUGHES was words and I rise in opposition to the incredulous.
allowed to proceed for 1 additional amendment. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman,
minute.) Mr. Chairman, I find it absolutely I move to strike the requisite number
Mr. HUGHES. I yield to the gentle- incredulous that we are going to of words and to speak in support of
man from Vermont. exempt casinos while we include finan- the amendment of the gentleman
Mr. JEFFORDS. The gentleman's cial institutions in this bill. I mean, from New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES].
amendment is directed at those em- think about that, 14,000 banks, 3,000
ployees that might have an opportuni- savings and loans, 20,000 credit unions (Mrs. VUCANOVICe asked and was
ty in concert with other illegal entities who handle billions and billions and given permission to revise and extend
to be able to launder money through billions of dollars of depositors' her remarks.)
the gambling institutions; is that cor- money, day after day after day. We Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman,
rect? say that they are not exempt from the I only wish that the amendment of
Mr. HUGHES. That is correct. In bill, but we exempt casinos. the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
fact, it is very limited because the test My colleagues, I am going to give MCCOrLUM] had been adopted because
can only be administered to employees you an opportunity to cast a vote on it would have covered casinos as a fi-
with responsibility for and in connec- this particular amendment as I will nancial institution. This is an amend-
tion with assuring compliance with ask for a recorded vote. ment which the gentleman from New
subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, will Jersey [Mr. HUGHES], supported, as did
United States Code, which deals with the gentleman yield? I.
those transactions that are reported to Mr. HILER. I yield to the gentleman I urge all of my colleagues to sup-
the Federal Government. from Maryland. port this amendment.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I have no objection Mr. MITCHELL. You convince me. Mr. Chairman, gaming is Nevada's
to the amendment. You have absolutely convinced me. We No. 1 industry yielding approximately
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will re- are opening this thing wider and $148 million in annual revenues or 51
quest the Clerk to read the modifica- wider. The last one on daycare, where percent of the State's total revenues.
tion to the amendment offered by the a woman who cooks, does not have any Nevada's economy has the highest
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. access to the child, but one day might tourism dependency of any State in
HUGHES]. because somebody is out sick, might the Union, and more than 80 percent
The Clerk read as follows: have to take that food up to the child of Nevada's tourist spending is attrib-
At the end of the amendment offered by has to get a polygraph test. utable to the presence of gaming. Ne-
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. I think we have opened this up so vada's gaming industry is strictly regu-
HUGHES], insert: wide that it is no longer a palatable lated by the State gaming commission
'(3) The exemption provided under this bill for this Member, and I would find making Nevada gaming the most close-
subsection shall not apply if- it exceedingly difficult to vote for it. l y "(A) the results of an analysis of lie detec-
tor charts are used as the sole basis upon Mr. SUNDQUIST. Mr. Chairman, country.
which an employee or prospective employee will the gentleman yield? One of the tools the gaming industry
is discharged, dismissed, disciplined in any Mr. HILER. I yield to the gentleman uses to maintain these standards and
manner, or denied employment or promo- from Tennessee. strengthen licensing procedures is the
tion." Mr. SUNDQUIST. Mr. Chairman, I
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection have a question of the gentleman from polygraph. I believe this system of well, to the modification offered by the gen- Indiana. Is what the gentleman saying ceasing and controls has worked well,
tleman from California [Mr. MARTI that we are going to propose voting to eliminating abuses and providing em-
protection exempt these gambling casinos, but Plaint the adequate misuse levels the There was no objection. not those members, those individuals The against
polygraph provides the strongaph-
The text of the amendment, as who run a mom and pop shop, the terrent The to theft heand other oth adversely acts of de-
modified, is as follows: small business person that belongs to ful e misconduct ond cer rselof c-
which affect
Amendment offered by Mr. HUGHES: Page the National Federation of Independ- the gaming industry.
8, after line 15, insert the following new sub- ent Businesses, these kinds of people
section: are excluded from testing? Is that For example, before polygraph tests
(e) EXEMPTION FOR LEGALIZED GAMING Es- what the gentleman is saying? were used, cash shortages at the Days
TABLISHMENTS.-(I) This Act shall not pro- Mr. HILER. That would be my inter- Inn casino exceeded $1 million per
hibit the administration of a lie detector pretation, year. Since the use of the polygraph,
test to any employee of a legalized gaming yes. those losses have been cut dramatical-
establishment by such an establishment to Mr. SUNDQUIST. I thank the gen ly, to less than 1 percent of the Iasi
the extent that- tleman.
(A) such use is consistent with- Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will no's gross. In another example, a ma-
(i) applicable State and local law, and the gentleman yield? jority of employees failed the poly-
(ii) any negotiated collective bargaining Mr. HILER. I yield to the gentleman graph when asked if they were selling
agreement, from Montana. and distributing drugs to casino pa-
that limits or prohibits the use of lie detec- Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, trons. In this instance, the polygraph
tor tests on such employees; and Members need to understand that we helped the casino eliminate this activi-
(B) the test is administered only to em- are not with this amendment except- ty and provide better service to its pa-
ployees with responsibility for, and in con- in the of trons.
nection with, assuring compliance with sub- g p Ygraphing of everyone that
chapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United works in a casino. We did not except it Polygraphs have provided a valuable
States Code. for banks and we are not excepting it service to Nevada gaming employers in
(2) For purposes of this subsection the for casinos. We are excepting it for a controlling cash handling, drug traf-
term "legalized gaming establishment" very narrow group of people, very ficking, and other related matters in
means any establishment operated under a select, very few people who are in a cage, casino and slot operations. If
comprehensive State regulatory system reg- position in the casino to launder large H.R. 1524 is passed, it will be extreme-
ulating casino gaming or gambling. amounts of money that threatens the ly difficult for casinos to police them-
(3) The exemption provided under this
subsection shall not apply if- safety, the financial safety of America. selves and will add an extra burden on
(A) the results of an analysis of lie deter- That is why we are excepting in the law enforcement officials in this area.
tor charts are used as the sole basis upon amendment. I believe legalized gaming casinos
which an employee or prospective employee Mr. HILER. Mr. Chairman, I find it should be able to continue to use the
is discharged, dismissed, disciplined in any fascinating that laundering of money polygraph so that the criminal ele-
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
March 12, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
ment can be further reduced in the
State of Nevada.
I support this amendment, and I
hope my colleagues will support it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES],
as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was
rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. If not, the ques-
tion is on the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute, as
amended.
The committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
I he Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose;
and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr.
FoLEY] having assumed the chair, Mr.
GONZALEZ, Chairman of the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union, reported that that Com-
mittee. having had under consider-
ation the bill (H.R. 1524), to prevent
the denial of employment opportuni-
ties by prohibiting the use of lie detec-
tors by employers involved in or af-
fecting interstate commerce. pursuant
to House Resolution 337, he reported
the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Commit-
tee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under
the rule, the previous question is or-
dered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any
amendment to the committee amend-
ment. in the nature of a substitute
adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the
amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the engrossment and
third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read
t he third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HILER. Mr. Speaker, I demand
a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were-ayes 236, noes
173, not voting 25, as follows:
tRoll No. 471
AYES-236
tekerman Biaggi Burton (CA)
Akaka Roehiert Bustamante
Atexand(r Boggs BSron
Andreas Boland Carper
Annunzio Boner (TN) Carr
Anthony Bonior(MI) Clay
Appl,'gate Honker Clinger
Akins Borski Coelho
AuCoin Bosco Conte
Retell Boucher Conyers
Reilrnson Boxer Cooper
Bentley Breaux Coughlin
Bereuter Brooks Courier
Berman Bruce Coyne
Hevill Bryant Crockett
Daschle
Kiec:ka
Rinaldo
Davis
Koller
Ritter
Dellums
Kostmayer
Robinson
Dickinson
LaFalce
Rodino
Dicks
Lantos
Roe
Dingell
Leach (IA)
Roemer
Dixon
Lehman (CA)
Rostenkowski
Donnelly
Lehman (FL)
Rowland (CT)
Dorgan (ND)
Leland
Roybal
Downey
Levin (MI)
Russo
Durbin
Levine (CA)
Sabo
Dwyer
Lipinski
Savage
Dymally
Long
Saxton
Dyson
Lowry (WA)
Seheuer
Early
Luken
Schneider
Eckart (OH)
Lundine
Schroeder
Edwards (CA)
Manton
Schumer
English
Markey
Seiberling
Erdreich
Martin (IL)
Sharp
Evans (IL)
Martinez
Shelby
Fascell
Matsui
Sikorski
Fazio
Mavroules
Skelton
Feighan
Mazzoli
Slattery
Flippo
McCloskey
Smith (FL)
Florio
McDade
Smith (IA)
Foglietta
McHugh
Smith (NJ)
Foley
McKinney
Snowe
Ford (MI)
Mica
Solarz
Ford (TN)
Mikulski
St Germain
Frank
Miller (CA)
Staggers
Gallo
Miller (WA)
Stallings
Garcia
Mineta
Stangeland
Gaydos
Moakley
Stark
Gejdenson
Mollohan
Stokes
Gekas
Moody
Stratton
Gilman
Morrison ((T)
Studds
Glickman
Mrazek
Swift
Gonzalez
Murphy
Synar
Gordon
Murtha
Tauke
Gray (IL)
Natcher
Tauzin
Gray IPA)
Neal
Torres
Green
Nichols
Torricelli
Gregg
Nielson
Traficant
Guarini
Nowak
Traxler
Hamilton
Oakar
Udall
Hawkins
Oberstar
Vento
Hayes
Obey
Visclosky
Hettel
Olin
Volkmer
Hertel
Owens
Walgren
Horton
Panetta
Watkins
Howard
Pashayan
Waxman
Royer
Pease
Weber
Hubbard
Penny
Wheat
Hughes
Pepper
Williams
Jacobs
Perkins
Wilson
Jeftords
Pickle
Wirth
Johnson
Price
Wise
Jones (OK)
Quillen
Wolpe
Kanjorski
Rahall
Wyden
Kaptur
Rangel
Yates
Kastenmeier
Regula
Yatron
Kemp
Reid
Young (AK)
Kennelly
Richardson
Young(MO)
Kildee
Ridge
NOES-173
Anderson
Daniel
Hartnett
Archer
Dannemey er
Hefner
Armey
Darden
Hendon
Badham
Daub
Henry
Barnard
de la Garza
Hiler
Bartlett
DeLay
Hillis
Barton
Derrick
Holt
Bateman
DeWine
Hopkins
Bates
DioGuardi
Huckaby
Bennett
Dowdy
Hunter
Bilirakis
Dreier
Hutto
Bliley
Duncan
Hyde
Boulter
Eckert (NY)
Ireland
Broomfield
Edwards (OK)
Jenkins
Brown (CO)
Emerson
JonestNC)
Broyhill
Evans (IA)
Jones (TN)
Burton (IN)
Fawell
Kasich
Callahan
Fiedler
Kolbe
Carney
Fields
Kramer
Chandler
Fish
LaBontarslno
Chapman
Fowler
Leath (TX)
Chappell
Franklin
Lewis (CA)
Chappie
Frenzel
Lewis( FL)
Cheney
Fuqua
Lightfoot
Coats
Gibbons
Livingston
Cobey
Gingrich
Lloyd
Coble
Goodling
Lutt
Coleman (MO)
Gradison
Lowery (CA)
Coleman (TX)
Gunderson
Lujan
Combest
Halt (OR)
Lungren
Craig
Hammerschmidt Mack
Crane
Hansen MacKay
Marlence
Porter
Snyder
Martin (NY)
Pursell
Solomon
McCain
Ray
Spence
McCandless
Roberts
Spra.tt
McCollum
Roger's
Stenin,)1m
McEweu
Rose
Strang
McGrath
Roth
Stump
McKernan
Roukema
Sundquist
McMillan
Rowland (GA)
Sweeney
Meyers
Schaefer
Swindali
Michel
Schuette
Tallon
Miller(OH)
Schulze
Thomas (CA)
Mitchell
Sensenbrenner
Thomas (GA)
Molinari
Shaw
Valentine
Monson
Shumway
Vander Jagt
Montgomery
Shuster
Vucanovtch
Moore
Siiander
Walker
Moorhead
Sisisky
Weiss
Morrison (WA)
Skeen
Whitehurst
Myers
Slaughter
Whitley
Nelson
Smith (NE)
Whittaker
O'Brien
Smith, Denny
Whitten
Ortiz
(OR)
Wolf
Oxley
Smith, Robert
Wortley
Packard
(NH)
Young (FL)
Parris
Smith, Robert
Zschau
Petri
(OR)
NOT VOTING-25
Addabbo
Gephardt
McCurdy
Arpin
Grotberg
Rudd
Barnes
Hall. Ralph
Taylor
Brown (CA)
Hatcher
Towns
Campbell
Kindness
Weaver
Collins
Latta
Wright
Dorman (CA)
Lent
Wylie
Edgar
Loeffler
Frost
Madigan
0 2045
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mrs. Collins for, with Mr. Taylor against.
Mr. Weaver for, with Mr. Loeffler against.
Mr. Barnes for, with Mr. Campbell
against.
Mr. Brown of California for, with Mr.
Rudd against.
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was an-
nounced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
..GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
revise and extend their remarks on,
H.R. 1524, the bill just passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
BOUCHER). Is there objection to the re-
quest of the gentleman from Califor-
nia?
There was no objection.
AUTHORIZING THE CLERK TO
MAKE CORRECTIONS IN THE
ENGROSSMENT OF H.R. 1524,
EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH PRO-
TECTION ACT OF 1985
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that in the
engrossment of the bill,, the Clerk be
authorized to make corrections in sec-
tion numbers, punctuation, and cross-
references and to make such other
technical and conforming changes as
may be necessary to reflect the actions
of the House in amending the bill.
H.R. 1524, the Employee Polygraph
Protection Act of 1985.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
 Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8
H 1070 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 12, 1 986
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PRO-
VIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RES-
OLUTION 296, CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET FOR THE U.S. GOV-
ERNMENT, 1987, 1988, 1989
Mrs. BURTON of California, from
the Committee on Rules, submitted a
priv:t,ged report (Rept. No. 99-491) on
the resolution (H. Res. 397) providing
for the consideration of the concur-
rent resolution (H. Con. Res. 296) set-
ting forth the congressional budget for
the United States Government for the
fiscal years 1987, 1988, and 1989,
which was referred to the House Cal-
endar and ordered printed.
REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIV-
ING CERTAIN POINTS OF
ORDER AGAINST CONSIDER-
ATION OF THE CONFERENCE
REPORT AND AN AMENDMENT
REPORTED FROM CONFER-
ENCE IN DISAGREEMENT ON
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 534,
URGENT SUPPLEMENTAL AP-
PROPRIATIONS FOR DEPART-
MENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1986
Mrs. BURTON of California, from
the Committee on Rules, submitted a
privileged report (Rept. No. 99-492) on
the resolution (H. Res. 398) waiving
certain points of order against consid-
eration of the conference report and
an amendment reported from confer-
ence in disagreement on the joint reso-
lution (H.J. Res. 534) making an
urgent supplemental appropriation for
the Department of Agriculture for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1986,
and for other purposes, which was re-
ferred to the House Calendar and or-
dered to be printed.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 534,
URGENT SUPPLEMENTAL AP-
PROPRIATION FOR THE DE-
PARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
1986
Mr. WHITTEN submitted the fol-
lowing conference report and state-
ment on the joint resolution (H.J. Res.
534), making an urgent supplemental
appropriation for the Department of
Agriculture for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1986, and for other pur-
poses:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 99-493)
The committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the Senate to the resolution
(H.J. Res. 534) "making an urgent supple-
mental appropriation for the Department of
Agriculture for the fiscal year ending Sep-
tember 30, 1986: and for other purposes,"
having met, after full and free conference
have been unable to agree.
The committee of conference, report in
disagreement amendment numbered 1.
JAMIE L. WHITTEN,
BOB TRAXLER,
MATTHEW F. MCHUGH,
WILLIAM H. NATCHER,
DANIEL K. AKAKA,
WES WATKINS,
RICHARD J. DURBIN.
NEAL SMITH,
VIRGINIA SMITH,
JOHN T. MYERS,
HAROLD ROGERS,
JOE SKEEN,
SILVIO O. CONTE,
Managers on the Part of the House.
THAD COCHRAN,
JAMES A. MCCLURE,
MARK ANDREWS,
JAMES ABDNOR,
BOB KASTEN,
MACK MATTINGLY,
ARLEN SPENCER,
MARK O. HATFIELD,
QUENTIN N. BURDICK.
JOHN C. STENNIS,
LAWTON CHILES,
JIM SASSER,
DALE BUMPERS,
TOM HARKIN,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF
THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House
and the Senate at the conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the Senate to the joint reso-
lution (H.J. Res. 534), making an urgent
supplemental appropriation for the Depart-
ment of Agriculture for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1986, and for other
purposes, report that the conferees have
been unable to agree. This is a technical dis-
agreement, necessitated by the fact that the
substitute language agreed to by the confer-
ees includes a provision which would fall
outside the normal range between the
House provision and deletion of the House
provision as was proposed by the Senate.
It is the intention of the conferees that
the managers on the part of the House will
offer a motion in the House to recede and
concur in the Senate amendment with an
amendment consisting of the language
agreed to in conference, and that upon the
adoption of such amendment in the House,
the managers on the part of the Senate will
offer a motion in the Senate to concur
therein.
The managers on the part of the House
and the Senate submit the following joint
statement in explanation of the action
agreed upon by the managers:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION
Amendment No. 1. Reported in technical
disagreement. The managers on the part of
the House will offer a motion to recede and
concur in the amendment of the Senate
with an amendment as follows:
Restore the matter stricken by said
amendment, amended to read as follows:
: Provided further, That after fiscal year
1987, funds available to the Corporation
may be used to carry out section 1241(a)tl)
of the Food Security Act of 1985, only to
such extent or in such amounts as provided
in advance in appropriations Acts. The
sign-up agreement should not reduce total
production below levels needed to meet do-
mestic needs, maintain the supply line, and
provide for an adequate supply for export by
either the Commodity Credit Corporation or
private corporations or individuals at com-
petitive prices; since by law the proceeds
from sales become available for use by the
Commodity Credit Corporation, such sales
should reduce future appropriations: Pro-
vided further, That the conservation reserve
program shall not replace or reduce any ex-
isting conservation program.
The level of funds previously appropriated
for the insured operating loan program of
the Farmers Home Administration, as pro-
vided in the Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 1986 for Agriculture, Rural Develop-
ment, and Related Agencies (H.R. 3037), as
enacted by Public Law 99-190 on December
19, 1985, shall be available until expended
except as that level may be reduced by the
terms of the sequester order implemented on
March 1, 1986.
The managers on the part of the Senate
will move to concur in the amendment of
the House to the amendment of the Senate.
The conference agreement deletes House
language which provided that after fiscal
year 1986, funds available to the Commodi-
ty Credit Corporation to carry out the con-
servation reserve program and the Federal
Crop Insurance Corporation program shall
be available only to such extent or in such
amounts as provided in advance in appro-
priations Acts.
The conference agreement includes lan-
guage that the sign-up agreement for the
conservation reserve program should not
reduce total production below levels needed
to meet domestic needs, maintain the
supply line, and provide for an adequate
supply for export by either the Commodity
Credit Corporation or private corporations
or individuals at competitive prices.
The conference agreement also provides
that the conservation reserve program shall
not replace or reduce any existing conserva-
tion program.
The Appropriations Act for fiscal year
1986 (H.R. 3037), as enacted by Public Law
99-190 on December 19, 1985, provided $2.7
billion for direct operating loans. The con-
ferees insist that the funds provided in the
Appropriations Act remain available for
fiscal year 1986, and remain available until
expended, except as that level may be re-
duced by the terms of the sequester order
implemented on March 1, 1986.
COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM
The conferees have been advised that the
Department plans to use commodity supple-
mental food program funds to reimburse
the Commodity Credit Corporation for do-
nated surplus commodities. The conferees
have agreed these funds shall not be used
for reimbursement until this proposal has
been reviewed by the appropriate commit-
tees of Congress.
JAMIE L. WHITTEN,
BOB TRAXLER,
MATTHEW F. MCHUGH,
WILLIAM H. NATCHER.
DANIEL K. AKAKA,
WES WATKINS,
RICHARD J. DURBIN,
NEAL SMITH,
VIRGINIA SMITH,
JOHN T. MYERS,
HAROLD ROGERS,
JOE SKEEN,
SILVIO O. CONTE.
Managers on the Part of the House.
THAD COCHRAN,
JAMES A. MCCLURE,
MARK ANDREWS,
JAMES ABDNOR,
BOB KASTEN,
MACK MATTINGLY.
ARLEN SPECTER,
MARK O. HATFIELD,
QUENTIN N. BURDICK,
JOHN C. STENNIS,
LAWTON CHILES,
JIM SASSER,
DALE BUMPERS,
TOM HARKIN,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
Approved For Release 2011/09/08: CIA-RDP87B00858R000500810031-8