EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH PROTECTION ACT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 71
• Document Creation Date: January 4, 2017
• Document Release Date: December 5, 2011
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: November 4, 1987
• Content Type: MISC

Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9528 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?;HOUSE
BRING HOME OVERSEAS IN-
vEsTmENTS, AND CREATE
JOBS IN marticlk
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was
given permission to address the House
for I minute.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker.
America's top 100 multinational corpo-
rations have assets of $600 billion
overseas.
Their overseas profit alone was $27
billion in 1985. Think about it. If we
could bring home half of that invest-
ment, $300 billion, we would create 5
million new manufacturing jobs.
We could rebuild our factories and
start to cut our deficit, but let us face
it. As of now, the only program in
effect is to provide rustproof paint to
empty factories and empty buildings
with unemployed Americana in some
souplines in the future.
0 1100
What bothers me is that if you
speak out on this issue, you are called
a protectionist. I say today that every-
one in this House is a protectionist
You are either protecting America or
you are protecting worker% overseas.
For years now we have been telling
our kids that America Ia the land of
opportunity, and unforttinately it is
still true, but only for those manufae-
turing plants in Japan, Taiwan, Korea,
Hong Kong, and Singapore. / think
America better do soinething about it.
INTRODUCTION OF RADIOAC-
TIVE MATERIALS TRANSPOR-
TATION ACT
(Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and
was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. blEYERS of Kansas. Mr.
Speaker, this year there will be about
1,400 shipments of high-level nuclear
waste and 2.8 million shipments of
low-level waste. In the future, this
number will increase as sites are
chosen for both high-level and low-
level waste disposal. This transporta-
tion of nuclear, waste across our
Nation is fraught with the slim, lbdt
very real, potential for catastrophe. '
To lessen this risk, we must ensure
that nuclear wastes are transported in
as safe a manner as possible/ Of the
safety inspectors employed by the De-
partment of Transportation, only one,
that's right one, is a specialist in nu-
clear matters. Therefore, I sin intro-
ducing the Radioactive Materials
Transportation Act .to mandate the
hiring of 20 addftienal safety inspec-
tors by DOT lo specialise in the trans-
portation of nuclear waste.
This bill issirdple and direct. It is In-
tended to prevent accidents by ensur-
ing that safety regulations are en-
forced and maintained. We need more
Inspectors to license commercial driv-
ers, inspect the containment casks,
railroad tracks, major signal* and de-
termine optimal transport routes.
Every state Is affected by t/da issue.
1 auk allmit colleagues to support the
Radioactive Materials Transportation
Act.
U.S. CONTR113IITION8 TO THE
UNITED NATIONS
(Mr. WEISS asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remits.)
Mr. WEISS. Mr. Speaker, today Con-
gressman Jim LEACH and I will be writ-
ing to our distinguished Foreign Af-
faits ,Conuaittee chairman, the gentle-
man from Florida, Mr. DANT. FAScELL,
supporting his efforts and urging the
conferees onthe State DePartMent au-
thorization bill to fully fund the
United States required contribution to
the United Nations. -
Mr. Speaker, this issue transenda the
ourreht InidgetarY aitue.tion. The
Reagan administration itself has
called attention to the fact that the
failure to meet our asseseed contribu-
tion to the United Nations would
clearly violate our treaty obligations.
The situation is particularly embar-
rassing in light of the recent decision
by the Soviet- Union to pay notenl,ir its
annual assessment to the United Na-
tions,. but all. its outstanding debts as
wen. mitileaves the United Stated; an
the largest debtor to 'the United Na-
tiOns. ?
For the 'United States to be in t
situation represents a drastic dePar-
ture, from our historical role as a
morel leader in, the company of law-
abiding natio*.
Mr. Speaker', there Wan urgent need
to strengthen respect for; international
law and the capacity of the United Na-
tions to fulfill its responsibilities.
I urge my colleagues on the Foreign
Affairs Committee to join us in sup-
Mill* Chairman PARC= in full
funding for the United Nations.
/QUESTIONS FOR CANDIDATE
, GEPHARDT
(Mr. GINGRICH asked and was
given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and ext.end
his remarks.)
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker. I
simply want to ask all of our friends
on the Democratic Party side and par-
ticularly thou who support Dim Gap-
HARDT for President to talk with Con-
gressman Daur Gucssuir about the
call-in show we did last night on C-
SPAN for sur hour, to ask him about
the seven out of the nine callers who
said they would never vote Democrat
again, to ask about the tone of outrage
on the part of .viewers who watched
last Thursday, who were disputed to
see House Members raise their own.
pax, give away tax breaks to every
Member of the Democratic leadership
and violate- the spirit of the rules of
the House. .
I would .be glad to provide a tran-
script of the callers to the debate.
November 4, 1987
I think as the news media pays at-
tention and starts to ask ebagressman
GEPHARDT what he do to clean
up the House, we wiji discover that
very rapidly it beemMes 'impossible to
hide, raise your mai pay, .late the
spirit of the rules, give away tax
Meeks to the big bilys, and go home
and claim you did not mean to do it
PUT THE TRADE DEFICIT ON
raiz Achott?A
(Mr. ALEXANDER asked and was
given permission to address the House
for 1 =to and to revise and extend
his re .)
M. ALEXANDER. Mt. epeaker, yes-
terday the dollar plummeted again
when traded against' f 'ten curten-
pies, losing several nte in its
value in Japan, and the
other Major marking *round the
world. This was anOther 'signal to the
President and tOMetnb oTaCongress
who are attempting:the ned eco-
nomic summit that we tukiSt put the
trade deficit on the agenda.
The 'budget deficit which has con-
sumed' most of the $tsem Is'
part
part of the probleni, arkrbe half the
problem. Th addredethe entire prob-
lem, one must put the trade deficit on
the agenda in order to restore the eco-
nor& business of Atneriea:
. EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH
PROTECTION ACT -
Mr. WHEAT. Mr. Speaker, by direc-
ion of the Committee ter Rules, I call
p House Resolution 295 :and ask for
immediate consideration.
? The Clerk read the resonation, as fol-
lows:
H. Ras 295
Resolved, That at any time after the adop-
tion of this resolution the Speaker may,
pursuant to clause l(b) of rule XXIU, de-
clare the House resolved into the Commit-
tee of the Whole House On the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (MR.
1312) to prevent the denial of employment
importunities by prohiletbag the use of lie
detectors by employers Involved in or affect-
ing interstate commerce, and the first read-
Ing of the bill shell bedispiesed with. After
general debate, Which shall he confined to
the bill and which Shall not exceed one
hour, to be tonally *tided and controlled
by the chairmen add ranging minority
member of the -Caromittee an Education
and Labor, the bill shall be Considered for
amendment under - the We rule. It
shall be in order to comidu theAmendment
in the nature of it substitute recommended
by the Committee on suWatlan and Labor
now printed in the bill is in original bill for
the purpose of amendment onder the five-
minute rule and each *Mara of said substi-
tute shall be considered, as having been
read. -dt the conclusion Og the consideration
of the bill for _amendment, the Committee
shell rise andd report the bill to the House
with such amendments as t have been
adopted, and any ..bittinier' , demand-
lieparate. vote in the *ease set any amend-
silent adopted in the!' of the
Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nitres el a slubstitute.
The previous Queitionahell. be Gmmideni.d as
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 9529
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto
to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. WHEAT]
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. WHEAT. Mr. Speaker, for the
purpose of debate only, I yield 30 min-
utes to the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. TAYLOR], pending which I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. WHEAT asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WHEAT. Mr. Speaker, House
Resolution 295 is an Open rule 'provid-
ing for the consideration of H.R. 1212,
the Employee Polygraph Protection
Act. The resolution provides for 1
hour of general debate to be equally
divided and controlled between the
chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Educa-
tion and Labor. The rule further
makes in order the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended
by the Committee on Education and
Labor and now printed in the bill as
original text for the purpose of
amendment. The substitute shall be
considered for amendment under the
5-minute rule and each section shall
be considered as having been read.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule pro-
vides for one motion to recommit, with
or without instructions.
Currently, numerous Americans are
being subjected to polygraph examina-
tions as a condition for obtaining and
Maintaining employment. Studies con-
ducted by the Office of Technology
Assessment indicate that these exami-
nations are no better than 85 percent
reliable. Thus these tests are unreli-
able in determining with full accuracy,
the honesty or dishonesty of an em-
ployee.
H.R. 1212 would prohibit the arbi-
tary and indiscriminate use of poly-
graph examinations in preemployment
screening or in the conduct of employ-
ee relations. It would also prohibit an
employer's use of indirect suggestions
that an employee submit to a lie detec-
tor test as a condition for employment
and the bill would make it unlawful
for an employer to discriminate
against an employee because he or she
exercises their rights as provided
under this act. Finally, Mr. Speaker,
this measure requires that employers
post notices informing employees of
their rights under this act imposes up
to a $100 per day civil penalty for fail-
ure to comply with the posting re-
quirement, and imposes up to a
$10,000 civil penalty for other viola-
tions of this act.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1212, is a measure
which protects the rights of this coun-
try's citizens to work in an environ-
ment free of indiscriminate question-
ing. I urge that we adopt the rule so
that we may proceed to consideration
of this measure.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 295
Is an open rule under which the House
will consider a bill prohibiting the use
of lie detector tests by all private em-
ployers not involved with intelligence
and counterintelligence work for the
Government.
The rule makes the Education and
Labor Committee amendment for H.R.
1212 in order as original text for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-
minute rule, and the committee
amendment is to be considered by sec-
tions.
Last, the rule provides one motion to
recommit, with or without instruc-
tions.
Mr. Speaker, this bill made in order
by the rule is highly controversial.
Judging by the number and wide vari-
ety of amendments that have already
been filed, it is apparent that the
House will spend a considerable
amount of time perfecting the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I can find no good
reason why private sector employers
should not be allowed to continue to
use polygraph testing when screening
potential employees. Polygraph test
results are currently used by various
government agencies in the most sen-
sitive areas, such as national security
and criminal law enforcement.
Last year, when a similar bill was of-
fered, the House voted to permit poly-
graph testing in the private sector for
those that work in the private securi-
ty, utility, pharmaceutical, day care,
and nursing home industries.
Mr. Speaker, Under this open rule,
we will again have the opportunity to
amend the committee bill. I support
this rule, and urge its adoption so that
the House may proceed to bring up
the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. GUN-
DERSON].
(Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I
simply want to rise in support of the
rule and the opportunity that it pro-
vides for us to have an open consider-
ation of this legislation. As the rank-
ing Republican on the Employment
Opportunities Subcommittee which
has jurisdiction over this legislation, I
have had the opportunity over this
session and previous sessions to listen
to all the debate regarding this par-
ticular piece of legislation as it comes
before us.
There is no question, as the gentle-
man from Missouri said, that there is
a great deal of controversy surround-
ing this legislation. Polygraphs are
controversial means by which we ques-
tion employees and prospective em-
ployees in our society today. Forty-one
States have recognized that controver-
sy and have passed legislation. As a
result and despite that, the legislation
before us today seeks to preempt every
State law in the land and to determine
that we at the top at the Federal level
know best how State legislatures, how
local governments, and indeed how
private business across this country
ought to conduct themselves in this
regard.
Some would suggest that we ought
to regulate the tests. Some would say
we ought to limit the exposure of the
tests. The legislation in front of us
today seeks to ban totally the use of
polygraphs in the private sector, with
only a couple exceptions.
I would suggest to my colleagues,
Mr. Speaker, that this is a good rule
because it allows us a long and open
debate on the legislation that is before
us. I would call to the attention of my
colleagues that it is an open rule
which brings to us, however, a very
contentious and very controversial
piece of legislation.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr, Speaker. I have
no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHEAT. Mr. Speaker, it is clear
that the rule does provide consider-
ation for a bill over which there is sig-
nificant disagreement, but the rule
provides ample opportunity for dis-
agreement and discussion of all the
Issues involved.
Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for
time and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-
ant to House Resolution 295 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. 1212.
0 1114
IN THE co/earns 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. 1212) 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. DiarrnizZ1 will be rec-
ognized for 30 minutes and the gentle-
man from Wisconsin [Mr. GUNDERSON]
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from California [Mr. Mumma
0 1115
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
(Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, as
chairman of the Employment Oppor-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
II 43W CONGRESMONAL REt01113 NOOSE
tunnies Subcommittee. I rise in sup-
port of H.R. 1212 banning the use of
lie detectors in the private workplace.
H.R. 1212 came out of my subcom-
mittee and passed the House last year
235-173. Thhi year witnesses from the
American Medical Association, the
American Psychological Association,
and the legal establishment all testi-
fied that there is no basis of scientific
validity whatsoever that the lie detec-
tor works. Last year we heard from
the head researcher of the Congres-
sional Office of Technology Assess-
ment study on the issue who thor-
oughly debtmked the validity of the
lie detector. Scientifically, the evi-
dence is in, the polygraph Is no more
effective for discerning truth and dis-
honesty than a black voodoo box.
Gentleman. I wish that there was a
scientifically reliable measure, so that
businesses can effectively deter the
loss of their property and profits.
However, I can only offer some prag-
matic advise to employers who face
this very real problem: use sound per-
sonnel and-management methods of
thorough background checks and
apply narrow audits of inventory and
cash. Not only are these methods
ehearor but they ean more effectively
target theft than the etimbersonse and
time-consuming lie detector machines.
In addition, eompanies will avoid trou-
blesome litigation that are being won
more and more by the complairdng
employees.
The proliferation of polygraph test-
ing in our Nation is affecting 2 to $
million Americans annuaRy. Even at a
00-percent success rate, which is
widely disputed, some 300,000 Ameri-
cans annually will be falsely accused
of crimes and thefts that they did not
commit. The sad part is, the chronic
thief and experienced liar will be able
to beat the lie detector, while hyper-
sensitive innocent workers will fail the
test Wad have their lives ruined.
Mr. Chairman, we need to have con-
trol over the rampant abuse of a prac-
tice which currently has confused the
business community into relying on an
instrument and process that Is fatally
flawed and causes long-term harm to
Innocent workers. Polygraph me is
available now, but it has not effective-
ly deterred or detected the ongoing
theft in our workplaces.
Finally, I do want to point oat that
losses from theft in the workplace
should not be attributed sole?, to the
dedicated worker* of the coMpany, but
often are the result of Management
level and white-eollar pilferage and
embankment. These management
level and white-eollen officials are cur-
rently exempt from the practice of
polygraph testing.
I urge my colleagues to support us
on this bill and vote against the weak-
ening amendments offered today.
Mr. GUNDER0ION. Mr. Chairman. I
yield myself 0 minutes.
(Mr. GUNDKRSON asked and was
given perndadon to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman,
this is not the most controversial piece
of legislation that we will deal with in
this Congress, but it is very controver-
sial, and it is not the most important
piece of legislation that we will deal
with in this Congress, but it is impor-
tant.
I would like to take a little bit of
time today to provide some back-
ground on where we are and where I
suggest this bill may lead us. First of
all, the bill before us, H.R. 1212, is
wrong because of its approach. There
As no debate that the polygraph has
been used improperly across this coun-
try in certain cases. So we have vari-
ous options. We can regulate its use,
we can limit its use or we can totally
ban it.
Unfortunately, the legislation before
us today takes the absolute ultimate
extreme of totally banning the use of
polygraphs except in two isolated ex-
emptions in the private sector.
Second, in taking this approach it re-
jects the !Act that 41, of the 30 States,
plus the District of Columbia. have al-
ready taken the initiative to regulate
In this area It is one thing for the
Federal Government to act when the
States are refusing to do their job. But
when 41 States and the District of Co-
lombia have already taken it upon
themselves to properly regulate as
they see fit for the conduct of business
In their State, why do we at the Feder-
al level want to come in and say to 41
State legislatures. 41 Governors, you
are all wrong, we at the Federal level
know better than you.
That gets into my second concern,
which is hypocrisy. This legislation
before us today allows the use of the
polygraph for the highest national se-
curity in our country. We allow it for
the Department of Defense we allow
it for the CIA, we say for the most Im-
portant national concerns in this coun-
try Itis OK to use the polygraph. But
it is not OK for the private sector to
use it because it is too umoliable. How
does one justify that kind of inconsist-
ency back home to one's constituents?
We tell the Department of Energy in
this legislation that they can use it be-
cause nuclear power is too risky. But
In this legislation we tell every public
utility in the country you cannot use it
In terms of nuclear power because it is
too unreliable. We tell NASA you can
use it in terms of high technology, but
we tell every private firm and science
foundation in the country you cannot
use it in terms of protecting the high
technology or the biotechnology of
your industry because it Is so unreli-
able.
What kind of message do we send
here today with that kind of hypocrisy
and inconsistency?
The legislation before us today does
not learn from what we did last ses-
sion, it does not build on that. It still
prohibits the use of the polygraph in
the area of drugs, it prohibits the use
of the polygraph in protecting our
nursing home residents and our day
Notiensbe!' 4,1987
care young children, and in the securi-
ty industries with those gentlemen
and women who carry guns in the pro-
tection of private business and finan-
cial institutions and in employee theft.
There is over $40 billion a year of em-
ployee theft in our Nation, and get
this, over $7,125 a minute is stolen by
employees from the companies they
work with. Yet this legislation says
even after that employee is on the job
and has the work record, we are not
going to allow the polygraph as one of
the many investigatory tools' to try to
get at that kind of employee theft.
Then, as I. mentioned earlier. the
Drug Enforcement Administration,
which supports' the. use of the poly-
graph when properly administered,
will tell you that over 1 million doses
of drugs are stolen each year, and yet
this legislation bans testing.
I would hope today during not only
the general debate but during the
amendment, process that we would try
to puraue the responsible use of the
polygraph, which is and ought to be a
proper and legitimate concern for each
and every one of us. We should protect
against the abuses in testing. However,
at the same time we must recognize
the findings of the Office of Technolo-
gY Assessment study of 1933 which
said meaningful scientific evidence of
the polygraph's validity could be
found in the area of investigations of
specific criminal incidents. ?
Earlier this year, on May II, we ac-
cepted an amendment at the gentle-
man from Florida to establish a per-
manent polygraph program for nation-
al defense by a vote of 34$ to 44. On
June 14 of this year by a vote of 414 to
nothing we accepted an amendment
by the gentleman from Florida.
On June 14 of this year by a vote of
414 to nothing we said that we ought
to establish a comprehensive embassy
and diplomatic security program.
Mr. Chairman, there are reasons- to
consider regulation. Thom is Da Ma.
&Won to take the extreme in the leg-
islation before us. We ask yen to listen
and debate, to participate and suPPort
the amendment* so that if we are
going to Impose mandates on these 41
State legislatures, we at least do AO on
a reasonable and consistent- basis.
Mr. MARTIN, Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Dsassad.
(Mr. DARDEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman from California
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong and
adamant olaPosition to the Polygraph
Pmtectiors Act. ER. 1212.
Before I get- into nry discussion of
my opposition to the bill in It. present
form I.want to take a moment to com-
mend my colleague, the gentleman
from Montana, Mr. PAT WILLIMILS.
MY good friead. and the chairman of
the Breployinent? Opportunity Sub-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 9531
committee, the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. MARTINEZ], for once again
bringing this issue to the floor of the
House of Representatives for debate.
There is no question that this is a sub-
ject that should and must be dealt
with by this Congress, and I look for-
ward to the debate. And even though
we disagree, Mr. Chairman, on a
number of the provisions in the bill,
and in fact we even disagree on the ap-
proach to be taken, I think special
commendation should go to the gen-
tleman from California [Mr. MARTI-
NEZ] and the gentleman from Montana
[Mr. WILLIAMS] for the very fair
manner in which they have permitted
the debate to go forward, especially in
the Rules Committee, where we have
now received an open rule so that
whatever is the result of this House,
those of us who oppose the Polygraph
Protection Act cannot say we have not
had a full and fair hearing.
So it is with this statement that I
would like to point out to the chair-
man of the full committee that the op-
ponents of this bill have been dealt
with fairly, and I am most grateful to
the gentleman from California [Mr.
MARTINEZ], the chairman of the sub-
committee, as well as the gentleman
from Montana [Mr. VA'Limits], for
giving us a chance to fully and com-
pletely debate this very controversial
topic.
Mr. Chairman, in the very famous
words of Alexander Haig, "This is not
an experience I haven't been through
before." Or, in correct grammatical
terms, we have previously discussed
this issue at great length.
This House has gone on record as
supporting the use of polygraphs. Last
year during debate of the Polygraph
Protection Act the House said poly-
graphs are proper for all employees of
government agencies, at all levels of
government, for consultants to the na-
tional security agencies, for employees
of drug-related firms, for security serv-
ice employees, employees at public
utilities, for children's day care center
employees and nursing home employ-
ees.
Incidentally, I will offer an amend-
ment at a later time to exempt em-
ployees of children's day care centers.
Just 6 months ago, Mr. Chairman,
345 Members of this House of Repre-
sentatives said polygraphs were legiti-
mate tools for ensuring our national
security. Just 5 months ago the House
voted unanimously to establish a poly-
graph program for diplomatic and em-
bassy security personnel.
The argument that the polygraph is
some type of hocus-pocus, or witch-
craft, or a torture machine has firmly
been rejected by the Members of this
House. We may not want to admit it,
but by our previous votes we have le-
galized this machine. We have, and
there is no denying it.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that if the
polygraph is a legitimate investigative
tool for these few industries and for
all government employees, it is a le-
gitimate investigative tool for all pri-
vate industry.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr.
YOUNG] and I will once again offer a
substitute amendment which recog-
nizes the inconsistencies in the ap-
proach taken by the Committee on
Education and Labor. Our substitute
takes the necessary steps to correct
any abuses that may be occurring
while still granting the private sector a
decision.
Mr. Chairman, every individual in
this Nation is affected by the practices
of dishonest employees, just as we
would all be affected by individuals in
the Department of Defense or in the
Department of State who practiced es-
pionage. This House has taken steps to
ensure our national security is not
jeopardized, yet we are considering
eliminating the very tool used by these
departments by passage of this legisla-
tion.
Why is it acceptable, Mr. Chairman,
for the polygraph to be administered
to an employee of the Department of
Agriculture or the Federal Aviation
Administration and yet be disallowed
to the local grocery store owner? Why
can a city or county employee in my
district be polygraphed, but a bank
teller or bus driver cannot be poly-
graphed?
My point, Mr Chairman, is that we
are extremely inconsistent to allow
the use of polygraphs in the public
sector on the one hand and to disallow
them in the private sector on the
other hand.
I say, Mr. Chairman, if there are
abuses in the system, let us correct the
abuses. Let us not eleminate the
system.
I urge Members of this body to sup-
port the substitute amendment as a
reasonable and measured approach to
this issue.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. NEAL).
(Mr. NEAL asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
0 1130
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, I have
several questions concerning the wide-
spread use of polygraph testing and I
would like to engage the opponents of
this legislation in a little colloquy if I
may.
My concerns are on two levels. The
first level is this: It seems to me that
the widespread use of polygraph de-
vices turns the American system of
justice on its head. As we use these in
preemployment screening and even in
other areas, criminal investigations
and so on, it seems to me we are essen-
tially saying to people, "We assume
you are guilty and we want you to
prove your innocence."
And the other area of concern to me
is the wide body of literature indicat-
ing that these polygraph gadgets are
in fact not lie detectors, that there is
no clear indication that these things
do what they say they are going to do.
The fact is that polygraph tests are
not reliable.
The problem here is an obvious one;
that there are ways of fooling these
gadgets. So a person skilled in deceiv-
ing the gadget might be entrusted
with very important information, for
instance, in the area of national secu-
rity or other important security infor-
mation.
I would welcome the chance to hear
an answer to these questions.
But first let me elaborate on this
concern: By depending on these gadg-
ets, which Senator Sam Ervin from my
State once characterized as "modern
day witchcraft," we will be letting
people into positions of high responsi-
bility and make available to very
clever people our most important na-
tional security secrets, and on the
other hand, since these things are in-
herently unreliable we will be convict-
ing a lot of innocent people.
Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. NEAL. I yield to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. DELAY].
Mr. DELAY. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to ad-
dress the position of the gentleman
that the polygraph is fallible.
Did the gentleman vote for drug
testing? And does the gentleman feel
that drug testing is not infallible? Be-
cause if drug testing, as we know it, is
fallible, then the same idea should be
taken by the proponents of this bill
that we ought to throw out drug test-
ing because it is not 100 percent accu-
rate.
Mr. NEAL. I do not recall any votes
on drug testing at this moment, but if
drug testing is not reliable, and I just
do not know about that at this point,
and that is not the subject under con-
sideration this morning, but if it were
not reliable then I certainly would not
want to subject people to these unreli-
able tests.
Let me say one other thing about
drug testing: Insomuch as we use drug
testing in a broad way to say to people,
"We are assuming you are guilty of
some illegal activity and it is up to you
to prove your innocence," I would be
very leary of it. We have a responsibil-
ity here, my friends, no matter what
the State legislatures around this
country have done, of protecting the
Constitution. And the Constitution is
clear coneerning our system of justice.
It is what separates us from the totali-
tarian systems.
We assume our people to be inno-
cent until proven guilty: under the to-
talitarian systems people are assumed
to be guilty and it is up to them to
prove their innocence. That is precise-
ly what I believe the widespread use of
lie detectors, so-called lie detector
tests, would be doing.
Mr. DELAY. If the gentleman will
yield further, does not the polygraph
give the opportunity to those employ-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
11 9532
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
?
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -'? HOUSE NoveMber 4,1987
ees who have been wrongfully accused
of stealing or raping or whatever they
have been accused of, the opportunity
to use this test procedure along with
other types of examinations? Does not
the polygraph give the opportunity, as
It has in this Nation for years, to clear
their name, keep them out of jail,
keep their jobs and to keep their repu-
tation? I think it should be known
that the polygraph can also be used as
a tool to prove that you are innocent.
Mr. NEAL. I am not aware of that.
Let me ask the gentleman to describe
that scenario. Do you mean where an
employee requests a lie detector test?
Mr. DelAY. That is correct.
Mr. NEAL. That is a different ques-
tion.
Mr. DELAY. No, the gentleman
would destroy any industry that relies
on polygraph testing. You would not
be able to seek employment with a
company that facilitates polygraph
testing because there will not be any
companies in business.
Mr. NEAL. Well, it is my under-
standing this legislation prohibits the
screening use of the lie detector test.
Mr. C1UNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
ranking member of the Committee on
Education and Leber, the gentleman
from Vermont /Mr. Jirromal.
(Mr. JEFFORDS asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. JEFFORDS. / thank the gentle-
man for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong sup-
port of the bill before us. The protec-
tions it will provide for workers are
tang overdue. My only regret is that
our colleague, Stew McKinney, is not
with us today to add his voice to ours.
He was a champion of this cause, and
a good Mend. We are here today
largely due to his hard work over
many years.
There will no 'doubt be a lot of dis-
cussion through the comae of today,
as we debate this bill and the various
amendments, but it all really boils
down to one stmple question. Do poly-
graphs work?espechrlly in preemploy-
ment screening?
My response, and the response of
every objective scientific observer, is
that they do not work in the employ-
ment setting.
We are not here today to debate
Whether or not there is crime in the
workplace. There is crime; by white
collar workereas well as blue: But the
fact there ist crime dens not 'justify the
unbridled use of the polygraph.
On just about every other labor bill
you will hear the calls to extend the
bill's provisions to Congress. I say this
not to belittle those efforts, became I
happen to be part of them. But the si-
lence on this polygraph issue is deaf-
ening. No one :seems to want to require
preempibyment screening of Members
of Congress.
This, in fact, is where the vast ma-
jority of polygraph tests are adminis-
tered by 1?private employers. Such
screening amounts to a flailing expedi-
tion, and often not a very lengthy one.
This bill would prohibit the 10-minute
quickie and all other polygraph tests.
But the Darden-Young substitute and
the various industry exemptions that
will be offered do absolutely nothing to
prevent the cheap, quick polygraph
test.
The substitute, for example, says
that no more than one exam can be
scheduled per hour. But that language
raises more questions than it answers.
There is nothing in that language to
compel that the test last for an hour,
and presumably unscheduled walk-on
business could be conducted.
The fact is that you cannot regulate
the use of polygraphs. It has been
tried by the States, and those efforts
have failed. Enforcement is virtually
Impossible, and employers circumvent
the law by testing employees in one
State and then transferring them to an-
other. Regulating the polygraph does
nothing to redress its inherent flaws.
In fact, polygraph usage may actually
Increase once employers believe the
Government, belt State or Federal, has
sanctioned its use. The Darden-Young
substitute acknowledges the problems
with polygraphs, but seeks to perpet-
uate their use in the private sector.
One of the most troubling things
about polygraphs is their perverse
impact. The scientific evidence indi-
csdes they are more likely to tar an in-
nocent person as guilty than are to
Identify a thief. An honest person is
concerned about telling the truth, a
liar is not. The guy on the Itunu ads
would pan a polygraph with flying
odors. George Washington might
have had trouble.
And the more fundamental question
Is: Why try to regulate a machine that
does not work? The Office of Technol-
ogy Assessment thoroughly studied
the polygraph and found no evidence
that it had any validity in the employ-
ment setting. Aside front studies by
the polygraph industry, no objective
scientist has found it to be much more
accurate than flipping a coin. That is
why both the American Medical Asso-
ciation and the American Psychologi-
cal Association support the bill.
The scientific theory is backed by
our real world experience. Although
you will hear statistics on the losses
suffered by business?and those losses
are very real?the one statistic you will
not hear is how much the polygraph
reduces those looses. Retail theft is no
greater in Vermont, where the poly-
graph is banned, than it is in Georgia,
where it is regulated. Casino losses are
no greater in New Jersey, where poly-
graphs are outlawed, than they are in
Nevada, which has few restrictions.
There are clearly better ways to
limit theft, from both an employer
and an employee's perspecttre, than
by strapping someone Into polygraph.
At a time when many of us are calling
for greater flexibility cit the part of
labor and increased Iftbormanagentent
cooperation, the growing use of poly-
graphs in the private sector seems to
head us in exactly the wrong direction.
Indeed, many employers have deliber-
ately banned their use. We do not
need polygraphs in a free society like
outs. I urge you to join us in support-
ing H.R. 1212, and rejecting weakening
amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from California Mfr. Merrixml has 17
minutes remaining and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Gumbeasorn has
20 minutes remaining.
Mr. MARTDIEZ. Mr, Chairman, I
yield 3 minutes and 30 second* to the
gentleman from Term (Mr. Batoortal.
(Mr. BROOKS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BROOKS. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rim in strong sup-
port of H.R. 1212?the Employee Poly-
graph Protection Act of 111417. This bill
will eliminate the widespread and
growing use of so-called lie detector
tests as a condition of employment in
America. It will not block their use by
law enforcement agencies for actual
investigations. Rather, it is aimed at
stopping the growing abuse of poly-
graphs used as screening tests for em-
ployment. Private employers ineresa-
ingly are forcing their employees to
take such testa as a condition,of em-
ployment even though they are not
suspected of any wrongdoing. This
practice is un-American?it assumes
everyone to be guilty until they prove
their innocence.
MY views on PolltgraPhs bare been
developed over many fear& as a
member of the House Government
Operations Committee. This commit-
tee bas overseen the Government's
polygraph programa since the early
1050'a and has strongly recommended
against the use of polygrapha for
screening ill the Federal Government
In four separate reports.
Several years age? the Office of
Technology Assessment surveyed the
scientific literature on polygraph va-
lidity for the Government Operations
Committee. In Its report, the OTA
concluded that there was no scientifi-
cally acceptable study to support the
use of polygraphs for samening pur-
pose& and that any validity that the
polygraph test may have fin specific
incident use would likely denessa dra-
mattcally in a screening earnest.
Ins recent update, theOTA reached
similar conclusion& tn fact, they cited
new studies which seriously question
the validity of polygraph testing.
Using figures from a Nattonal Security
Sinner Progrant, isnlitgraPha getuest.
ed error rates of 27 percent. That is,
errors were made nearly one-third of
the time. Further, other laboratory re-
search indicates that those trained in
simple countermegiures to beat the
polygraph are Imeoessfal in EDEMA; the
test or profaning an ineonclusive
result 415 gement of the time.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE
Since OTA's studies, many propo-
nents of polygraph use have backed
away from their claims of high poly-
graph validity. Instead, they argue the
concept of utility. They point to nu-
merous instances when the polygraph
exam, or the threat of the exam, has
been useful in eliciting important in-
formation or even confessions.
We should not confuse validity with
utility. There is no question that the
polygraph can be a very intimidating
tool and may have some utility in that
regard, just as the dunking stool, the
rack, and the firing squad have had in
past centuries.
That would convince you to confess
to damn near anything would it not,
Congressman?
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chariman, will
the gentleman yield, the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations?
Mr. BRO01:03. I yield to the gentle-
man from Georgia [Mr. Daanstil.
Mr. DARDEN. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, would the distin-
guished chairman of the Committee
on Government Operations agree that
as the chairman of the Committee on
Government Operations the chairman
has very broad powers and could well
have brought legislation in this body 11
he believed so strongly that the poly-
graph is witchcraft and torture, to
eliminate Its use throughout the coun-
try, not just in the private sector but
for Government employees as well?
And why has not the distinguished
chairman brought legislation here to
abolish the use of this machine to pro-
tect Government employees?
Mr. BROOKS. I would in one
second. We did not have that Jurisdic-
tion. We had jurisdiction to examine
what they are doing, but not to pass
the legislative authority.
Now the Labor Committee has got it,
and Judiciary may be able to get into
It by eliminating the production of
this kind of junky equipment, as being
Illegal advertising, you know, holding
out that It would do something. I am
looking for another way to introduce
the bill.
As former President Nixon said
about polygraphs on the Watergate
tapes, "/ don't know how accurate
they are, but I do know that they'll
scare the hell out of people."
This elaborate con operation should
not be allowed to be institutionalized
as a feature of our Nation's workplace.
It is inherently offensive to American
concept' of Justice.
Last year, the world's largest associa-
tion of psychologists condemned the
widespread use of polygraph tests for
screening mimeses. The American
Psychological Association concluded
that conducting such tests by psy-
cho/tights could be unethical. The
group found the scientific evidence re-
garding the validity of polygraphing
to be "unsatisfactory and particularly
poor concerning polygraph use hi em-
ployment screening." They recognized
the "great damage to the innocent
persons who must inevitably be la-
beled as deceptors" in such screening
situations.
Recently, a scientific council of the
American Medical Association has also
munitioned the use of polygraph teat-
We should not allow passing some
bogus lie detector test to become a
condition of employment in this coun-
try. I urge you to vote for H.R. 1212
and against all weakening amend-
ments.
0 1145
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. PENNYL
(Mr. PENNY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I urge a
"yes" vote on H.R. 1212, the Employee
Polygraph Protection Act and a "no"
vote on the Darden-Young substitute
and other amendments.
HR. /212 prohibits the use of a
polygraph in most employment situa-
tions. Currently, 10 States have simi-
lar statutes. In addition, /2 States go
even further by effectively banning all
use of such tests by employers.
Plain and simple?if you believe a
polygraph is an Imperfect tool and
that its results may be unreliable?
then you should support H.R. 1212
and oppose amendments.
The Darden-Young substitute allows
the use of polygraphs in most in-
stances but Institutes a Government
regulatory system. Get that?Govern-
ment regulations! I can't believe the
business community prefers this sub-
stitute.
The rights of America's workforce
are at stake in this vote.
We should make it dear that the
polygraph is an inappropriate Job
screening mechanism.
Vote "no" on the Darden-Young big-
government and redtape substitute
and vote "yes" on the MN to protect
employee rights.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Chuntorl, a
member of our subcommittee.
(Mr. GRANDY linked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GRAN/YY. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding time
tome.
Mr. Chairman, today the House is
considering an issue baste to the Amer-
ban tradition of civil rights. The pre-
sumption of innocence until guilt is
proven has been a right Americans
have long protected. It fit a prestures-
tion which lien at the very heart of the
American legal system. Purtherroore,
It is a right to- which this body is
obliged to uphold.
I am sore we are all aware of the
many violations - of privacy rights
which have oceured from the abase of
the polygraph. The Ares and repute-
H 9533
tions of countless innocent individuals
have fallen victim to the harsh reali-
ties of an imperfect and perhaps even
imperfectable test. The Committee on
Education and Labor heard testimony
from several organizations which
pointed out the explosive use of these
tests over the past several years. Al-
though estimates on the validity and
accuracy of the tests vary, it can be
stated unequivacally that many inno-
cent people have failed the exam. In
point of fact, the exam has failed in-
nocent people. Interestingly enough,
this exam has also failed by proclaim-
ing certain guilty individuals to be in-
nocent.
Clearly, the time has come for Con-
gress to address this issue. I believe
that the amendments that will be of-
fered by the ranking minority member
of the Employment Opportunities
Subcommittee, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Otaitstasoel would
serve to protect the American worker
white maintaining the ability of em-
ployers to control workplace crime.
The amendment to which I refer
would prevent preemployment testing,
which has proven to be the most inac-
curate type of polygraph test adminis-
tered today. At the same time, the
amendment would allow the use of
polygraph testing when it has proven
to be an effective tool in uncovering
crime, namely, after a specific crime
has been committed. By permitting
the polygraph to be used in a con-
trolled environment with restrictions
on the questions asked, minimum re-
quirements for the length of the test,
and by putting the polygraph in
proper perspective as only one tool
among many, we will likely see a great
Improvement in the accuracy of poly-
graph testing.
I urge my colleagues to support the
Gunderson amendment. and extend to
the American worker the rights which
criminals already have.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I
would also have to say that although I
support their efforts, I will oppose all
exemptions to this bill for obvious rea-
sons. If the test is ineffective for day-
care, it will also be ineffective for
nursing homes, and if we are going to
exempt day care, are we not going to
exempt kindergartens?
If we are going to exempt nursing
homes, are we not. going to exempt
nurses or home health care deliverers?
In other wont; Members have a
choke tn these exemption" of selecting
between a sin of omission and a sin of
commission. There is no way to work
this bill unless we pass the Gunderson
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let us support accura-
cy. Let us support the test that does
work and reduce the false positives.
KR. 1212 without the Gunderson
amendment is unacceptable because it
Is a mixture of protection for the
American worker and punishment for
the American bushiessznan.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9534
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE November 4, 1987
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GRANDY. I yield to the gentle-
man from North Carolina.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the gentleman how he can
support the amendment which encour-
ages an increased use of polygraphs if
he says, as he did in his opening state-
ment, that he thinks the polygraph
test is inherently inaccurate.
Mr. GRANDY. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for asking that
question because it plays into the data
that we received in testimony on the
Employment Opportunity. Subcommit-
tee which shows specifically that when
the test is administered for incidents
specific after the fact, the increase in
accuracy raises dramatically. So in
that case we have perhaps an accepta-
ble gauge to judge crime in the work-
place. As a preemployment tool, I
probably agree with the gentleman.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, let me ask
the gentleman this: The accuracy
raises to what level?
Mr. ()RANDY. Mr. Chairman, I am
sorry. Will the gentleman repeat that?
Mr. NEAL. The gentleman said the
level of accuracy is raised considerably
when the test is not used for preem-
ployment screening but in fact used
for crime-specific purposes. What is
the level of accuracy?
Mr. GRANDY. Mr. Chairman, I
think the gentleman is asking me
whether it is a hundred percent, but
that clearly is not it. It is higher than
the 40 to 60 percent that we have seen
as a preemployment figure.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. GRANDY]
has expired.
Mr. GIJNDFIRSON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. YOUNG].
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, if this bill becomes law in its
present form or with additional
amendments to exempt certain phase
of the economy or with the substitute
to be offered by the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. DARDEN] and myself, or
if it becomes law just like it is written
today, there will be the use of poly-
graphs throughout America. Let us
understand that.
The substitute that the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. DAituaril and I will
offer answers to most of the com-
plaints that we have heard from those
Members who support the bill. They
are concerned that the polygraph ex-
amination will not be given properly
or that it will be done hurriedly. The
purpose of our substitute is to guaran-
tee that wherever polygraphs are used
In America, they will be used by
trained professionals with numerous
safeguards to the person being exam-
ined.
Again I say there is going to be the
use of the polygraph under this bill,
no matter what form it takes when it
Is passed. Someone has called it a
gadget. Maybe it is. It is a piece of
equipment. Actually, the polygraph is
only as good as the examiner.
If the Members allow us to adopt
the Darden-Young substitute, we are
going to require trained professional
examiners who know what they are
doing and who have a law to go by
when they administer these examina-
tions.
Someone else said there is nothing
in the Darden-Young substitute to
prevent a quickie polygraph exam.
That is not accurate. That speaker has
not read the substitute, because we
provide in the substitute that the ex-
aminer shall set aside a minimum of 1
hour to conduct that examination.
Now, there are those who say that
the polygraph does not work and
should not be used. In the State of
Florida, for the last 20 years poly-
graph examinations have been used.
There were 300,000 last year alone.
Before a polygraph examination can
be administered in the State of Flori-
da, the examinee must be advised that
he has the right to complain if he is
not satisfied with the conduct of the
examiner, and he is told where to com-
plain and to whom.
There were 300,000 examinations
last year in Florida, Mr. Chairman,
and there was one complaint. In the
year before that there were in excess
of 300,000 polygraph tests adminis-
tered in the State of Florida, and
there was one complaint. As a matter
of fact, Florida's Secretary of State at
the time testified before the other
body last year about the polygraph,
and I take that information from his
statement.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say
something to the Members, in case
they missed it about what one of our
colleagues said. When our colleague,
the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Bscoics], took the microphone, he said
something very key to this debate. He
said that his committee has put out
four reports suggesting that the poly-
graph should be outlawed totally, in-
cluding for the Government. Let us
understand what he is saying, Mr.
Chairman. When he says we should
exclude them from the Government,
he is saying that the Central Intelli-
gence Agency cannot use them, the
Defense Department cannot use them,
and that none of our national security
agencies can use them. He is saying
that none of our intelligence secrets
can be protected by the use of the
polygraph.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yomgcl
has expired.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. VISCLOSKYL
(Mr. VISCLOSSY asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in strong support of H.R. 1212, the
Employee Polygraph Protection Act,
and I also rise in strong opposition to
any amendment that might be offered
to weaken the bill.
I speak from practical experience. I
was the subject of a polygraph exami-
nation, if you would, when I was in the
Manhattan district attorney's office in
New York City during the summer of
1972. Each of us was given a polygraph
examination, not as a condition of em-
ployment but to inform us of its oper-
ation, its use, and its validity or lack
thereof.
In our group there were four individ-
uals. We controlled the questions that
were asked, and we answered in a neg-
ative fashion to each. Two questions
were true, two questions were false. In
my instance, I flunked that examina-
tion because the examiner mispro-
nounced the name of the high school
that I graduated from. A woman in
our group also flunked the examina-
tion because apparently she had a re-
action when the examiner mispro-
nounced the place of her birth. So out
of that group, in a very controlled cir-
cumstance, we had a 50-percent ratio.
I am adamantly opposed to the use
of these devices in our society. They
do not have a place in our society.
Mr. Chairman, my support for H.R.
1212 is not due exclusively to my anec-
dotal experience. The hard, uncontest-
ed truth is that, in an employment sit-
uation, there is no scientific data to
validate the use of polygraph ma-
chines. All agree that test validity is
primarily affected by the examiner,
the subject and the setting. The fact
remains that no one, regardless of ex-
perience, can determine from a poly-
graph chart why a subject responded
In a certain way, whether out of guilt,
fear, anger, humiliation, or intimida-
tion. The ironic truth is that lie detec-
tor tests have a built-in bias against
truthful people. The more honest
workers are, the more likely they will
fail the polygraph because of their
heightened sensitivity to having their
honesty challenged.
While polygraphs are unfair to all
workers, I am concerned about their
impact on minorities. In testimony
before the Subcommittee on Employ-
ment Opportunities, the Legal Action
Center reported that the tests have a
substantial discriminatory effect, on
minority job applicants and employ-
ees. There are two reasons for this
finding. First of all, the polygraph is a
measure of physiological functions,
and there is research evidence of
ethnic and group differences in physi-
ological reactivity to stress which may
affect the polygraph's. validity when
used on particular groups. Second, the
inherent subjectivity ? at determina-
tions based on the polygraph creates
extensive opportunities for conscious
or unconscious biases and cultural
stereotypes to affect the decisions
made by polygraph examiners.
So what do we know about poly-
graphs? We know that there is no re-
search to validate their "findings." We
know that they do not gauge what
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? HOUSE
they are perceived to, and we know
that there is growing evidence to indi-
cate that they are used in a discrimi-
natory fashion. There are less drastic,
more effective ways to deter employee
theft and abuse that do not infringe
upon an Individual's civil rights. I do
not understand why criminal's are pro-
tected from polygraph testing, but
American workers are not.
In conclusion,. I can only observe
with redress that we are faced with an
administration that wants everyone to
take a polyaraph teat to get a joh, and
take a drug test to keep the job, accept
a minimum wage for the job. I urge
my colleagues to join with, me and sup-
port H.R. 1212 and to oppose attempts
to weaken it.
Mr. GUNDE.RSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VISCLOSEY. I am happy to
yield to the gentleman from Wiscon-
sin.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman,
Is it the gentleman's intent, then, to
offer an amendment during the debate
today that will prohibit the use of the
polygraph for national security pur-
poses or prohibit Its use for our for-
eign policy personal as well?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. It Is not, because
at this point I do not believe that the
majority of my colleagues in this
Chamber agree with me on that par-
ticular subject. I am disappointed at
that, and I regret that disappoint-
ment.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Why did the
gentleman vote for the Mica. amend-
meat?,
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Vector-
sxyl has expired.
Mr. GUNDERSON- Mr. Chairman, I
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah Mr. Nistsorrl.
(Mr. NIELSON of Utah asked and
was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. NIELSON of Utah. Mr. Chair-
man,. I rise in support of H.R. 1212,
the Employee Polygraph Protection
Ad.
I am committed to protecting the
welfare of businesses and the consum-
ers. Many of my colleagues and those
in the areas of commerce feel that
polygraph testing is necessary for pre-
ventive and prosecutorial measures.
As a former professor of statistics,
however. I am very concerned with the
validity in which the polygraph can
accurately detect truth or deception.
Taking information published by the
U.S. Congress Office of Technology
Assessment, ft Is surprising how inac-
curately these tests have been inter-
preted. The results can be summarized
as follows:
For guilty persons:
Shown to be guilty: 65 percent.
Shown to be innocent: 18 percent.
Those who had Inconclusive tests: 17
percent.
For innocent peso=
Shown to be guilty: 19 percent.
Shown to be innocent: 69 percent.
Those who had inconclusive tests: 12
percent.
It is easy to see that polygraph test-
ing acts in- a detrimental way for inno-
cent persons.
As an example, assume that 5 per-
cent of the people being screened are
actually guilty. Also assume a very
high validity rate of 90 percent. In this
situation, the polygraph would only
have a 33 percent predictive value,
since for every person correctly identi-
fied as deceptive, two innocent people
would be wrongly classified as decep-
tive. It is a matter of simple mathe-
matics that in order to catch 90. per-
cent of the guilty individuals, 68 per-
cent of the people who fail the poly-
graph test will have been innocent.
The irony is that by basing more and
more important social decisions on the
results of polygraph testa, we may be
producing an effect opposite to that
Intended, firing the most honorable
police officers, refusing to hire the po-
tentially most reliable employees,
while staffing sensitive positions with
those lucky or clever enough to know
how to beat the polygraph.
I urge my fellow colleagues to vote
In favor of H.R. /212.
0 1200
Mr. MARTINNA. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New 'York IMr. STAGG!).
(Mr. BIAGGI asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BLIGGL Mr. Chairman, / thank
the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise as an original
cosponsor and strong supporter of
H.R. 12/2, the Employee Polygraph
Protection Act.
As New York's ranking member on
the House Education and Labor Com-
mittee, I have heard the testimony
about the abuse, misuse and overuse
of polygraph testing in the private
sector. However, I believe this legisla-
tion offers an effective and responsible
solution to that problem. Simoly put,
It provides labor with important and
much needed protection.
As a 23-year police veteran, I believe
there are certain very specific sftua-
tions where the polygraph can and
Should be used to help prevent crimes,
and to detect criminals once a crime
has been committed. This bill already
has some specific allowances for those
situations, and I will be supporting ef-
forts later today to ensure that other
exemptions are added as well, includ-
ing one for certain segments of the
private security industry.
Those exemptions will provide for
the responsible and necessary use of
the polygraph, while allowing the re-
maining provisions ha the Mil to pre-
vent the abuse, misuse and overuse of
the he defter test. This is a very fair
and balanced approach and one that
deserves our full support.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to
commend the author of the bill, Mr.
H 9535
WILLIAMS, and the distinguished chair-
man of the Employment Opportuni-
ties Subcommittee, Mr. Iiisrrime, for
their untiring efforts on behalf of this
Important piece of legislation.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Fstrettl.
(Mr. FAWELL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. FAWELL, Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
H.R. 1212, which would ban the Use of
polygraphs in the private sector, and
urge my colleagues to support the var-
ious amendments which will be of-
fered later today to allow the me of
polygraphs under regulated and limit-
ed circumstances.
The polygraph is an important tool
for deterring employee theft. Employ-
ee theft, which amounts to a hidden
tax on all products purchased by con-
sumers, is estimated at 640 billion Per
year. A 1980 Univerdiy of Minnesota
study concluded that 60 percent of the
employees surveyed from nine retail
organizations admitted to stealing
from their employers.
If anything, the polygraph at least
serves us tool which deters many em-
ployees Irma ever considering to steal
from their employers. Ha. 1212, by
banning the use of polygraphs alto-
gether in the private sector, takes
away this deterrent.
Proponents at ILE. 1212 also ques-
tion the validity of polygraphs and the
accuracy of test results. Yet, the bill's
proponents undermine their argument
when they allow Federal, State, and
local governments to continue to use
polygraphs. If the bin's proponents
think that the result of polygraphs
are not. valid in the private sector, how
can they possibly be valid in the public
sector?
Ironically, the House already this
year has recognized the validity of
polygraphs when it. approved an
amendment to the defense authoriza-
tion bill which would establish a per-
manent polygraph program for nation-
al defense agencies. The House en-
dorsed that amendment, and the valid-
ity of polygraphs, by a vote of 345 to
44.
Either polygraph results are valid or
they are not? We can't have it both
ways.
If there are problems with the way
polygraphs are administered in the
private sector, KR. 1212 Is the wrong
response. Because Congress has al-
ready recognized that polygraphs do
work in the Federal Government, at-
tempts to ban their use in the private
sector is high-handed hyPectwe'r.
Instead of banning polygraphs alto-
gether, my colleagues should support
the Young-Darden substitute amend-
ment. The substitute is a reasonable
and responsible alternative which
allows private-sector employers to con-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
119536
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE November 4, 1987
tinue to use polygraphs under strict
guidelines.
The Young-Darden substitute estab-
lishes minimum Federal standards for
the use of polygraphs in the private
sector and does not preempt more re-
strictive State laws. Individual rights
are also protected. An employer could
not deny employment, discharge, or
discipline an individual based solely on
the results of a polygraph exam.
The substitute also places strict re-
quirements on polygraph examiners.
Examiners are prohibited from asking
questions pertaining to an individual's
religious, racial, or political beliefs,
union affiliation, of sexual preference.
Tougher training standards are re-
quired for examiners, and an examiner
could not give more than 10 polygraph
tests per day.
More importantly, the substitute
continues to respect the right of
States to regulate the use of poly-
graphs, whereas H.R. 1212 imposes an
outright Federal ban on their use in
the private sector.
I urge my colleagues to reject H.R.
1212 as a hypocritical and irrational
response to the so-called polygraph
problem and, instead, support the
Young-Darden substitute as a respon-
sible alternative.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
yield Ws minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. TRAIPICANTL
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I find this debate
very interesting: Richard Speck killed
eight nurses, and he was not forced to
take a polygraph. Neither was Charles
Manson or the Son of Sam.
Your 18-year-old daughter going out
for her first job, never accused of any-
thing, is going to have to take a poly-
graph.
Companies that rely on polygraphs
have more theft than those that do
not. The polygraph will never replace
good personnel management and back-
ground screens; and if this Congress
can continue to fortify the rights of
Speck and Manson, we should assist
the American workers in some basic
civil rights, too.
What about the workers coming into
the company that pays minimum wage
and says, we find out that you could
afford to pay more. We have a collec-
tion bargaining agreement.
Will the company have to take a lie
detector test? This is a rights vote, and
what separates us from the Soviet
Union is the debate that is going on in
this House today.
It is a rights vote. I support this bill,
and any amendment to weaken it, I
will speak out against it.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DELsy).
(Mr. DELAY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, this debate is incredi-
ble. If the Members look at the bill
and the cosponsors of the bill, it will
show the Members the irony of H.R.
1212.
It seems interesting to me that the
proponents of the bill, most of them,
criticize the CIA, the FBI, law-enforce-
ment agencies for Gestapo tactics.
Yet, they are the very agencies that
they are exempting in this bill and
going to allow to use this abusive and
intrusive polygraph.
These are also the very people that
claim they protect labor, and by doing
so, protect jobs. Yet, by passing this
bill, No. 1, they are destroying 100,000
jobs by putting out and wiping out
10,000 businesses that administer poly-
graphs.
No. 2, polygraphs vindicate employ-
ees from accusations that could cost
them their jobs and their reputations,
and they are going to wipe that out.
The same proponents a this bill are
also the very ones that say they are
consumer advocates. Yet this bill will
remove one of the tools that is used to
fight theft that results in higher
prices. We ought to call this bill the
Criminal Protection Act of 1987.
The advocates also claim to be the
protectors of children, elderly, and of
women. Yes, these are the same people
that want to take away the tools that
would keep the child abuser out of the
day-care center, keep those that mis-
treat the elderly out of the nursing
home, and keep the rapists and the
thieves out of personal residences.
I have an amendment that will
exempt pest-control companies, and I
will use this amendment to show the
Members how ridiculous this bill is,
and show the Members example after
example.
In one case in San Antonio, there
was a rapist that was kept from being
hired by a pest control company be-
cause of the polygraph exam and
other test procedures. If you as home-
owners want to take away the ability
of screening people, rapists and
thieves, out from being able to come
into your home, then you should sup-
port this bill. If you do not, and if you
want to keep these people out of these
homes, and they do come in unattend-
ed, then vote for my amendment.
Please remember that there are all
kinds of examples of horror stories of
people going in to service a home and
not only raping but stealing.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAY. I yield to the gentleman
from North Carolina.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
Is it the gentleman's position that
these things are accurate?
Mr. DELAY. Absolutely.
Mr. NEAL. Does the gentleman have
any evidence?
Mr, DELAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaim-
ing my time, and I will tell the gentle-
man how accurate they are.
They are not from some study the
gentleman cut out from the Institute
of Justice, but accuracy of the practi-
cal marketplace.
If they were not accurate, companies
would be wasting their money using
them. They use them because they are
85- to 95-percent accurate.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. ANDRZWO.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Private industry does have a real
problem, and that is in screening em-
ployees and trying to avoid theft.
The answer, I believe, does not lie
with the polygraph machine, with a lie
detector.
We know from the estimates we
have heard here in the debate today
that they are only accurate some-
Where between 8 and 10; and 25 per-
cent of the time they are fallible.
They do not work.
The response for business is to do it
the old-fashioned way, to carefully
screen their prospective employees, to
examine their recommendations, to
talk to their previous employers, but
not a fallible lie detector.
I served 4 years III the district attor-
ney's office in the Houston area. Most
of that time I worked in prosecuting
organized crime cases and major drug
rings in the Texas area.
I am telling the Members, time and
time again, the lie detector proved un-
workable and fallible, and was not a
useful tool, even in the very most com-
petent hands.
In one instance I tried a defendant
who robbed a camera store in a small
shopping center. He was covered in a
hood in a jumpsuit, and at the point of
a gun in about 3 minutes he robbed a
young woman of the money in the
store.
He had six alibi witnesses, and he
took three polygraph tests. Two were
administered by the police depart-
ment. He passed all three.
The State was prepared to dismiss
the case, but the young woman over
and over again said that this is the
man that robbed me.
The case was tried, and I wondered
whether the guilty verdict and the 15
Years that the Jury gave that defend-
ant were correct. Two weeks later they
brought the defendant into the court-
room manacled and ready to be sent
away.
Everyone in the room but the jury
knew that that man had passed those
lie-detector tests. He leaned to the
bailiff, and he whispered to him, "You
know, if I had killed that young
woman, today I wOuld never be in this
mess now."
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 9537
They are fallible, they do not work,
and it is very important by this bill
that we limit their use as much as we
can.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. DELAY].
Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
I wanted to ask the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. ANDREWS], my good neigh-
bor and friend from Houston, does the
gentleman believe that drug tests are
100 percent infallible?
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAY. I yield to the gentleman
from Texas.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
Of course not, but we can be rela-
tively sure that they are more accu-
rate.
If I could answer the gentleman's
question?
Mr. DELAY. Are they 80 percent in-
fallible?
Mr. ANDREWS. If I could have an
opportunity to answer your question?
Mr. DELAY. Are they 80 percent in-
fallible, 90 percent?
Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman
would stop interrputing me and let me
answer the question. the American
Medical Association has stated over
and over again that a lie-detector test
is just about as accurate as a flip of
the coin.
That is not true with drug testing.
Mr. DELAY. There are studies that
refute that.
I am just asking the gentleman if
drug tests are fallible. Is the gentle-
man suggesting that we require 100
percent accuracy on all tools to stop
criminals?
Is the gentleman for or against drug
testing?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DELay]
has expired.
Mr. GLTNDERSON. Mr. Chiarman, I
yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I point out to the
Members that the gentleman from
Texas who just told the story did not
point out that the gentleman was the
prosecutor, the one obviously who was
involved and supportive of the admin-
istration and the results of those poly-
graph tests; but now after the individ-
ual referred to was convicted, now the
gentleman chooses to believe the
person who was convicted.
I just suggest that we put this story
In its proper perspective. I am not sure
I believe someone who is convicted of
this kind of a crime, is this type of
person the one we ought to be relying
on in determining whether a poly-
graph is or is not valid.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chiarman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Montana [Mr. WILLIAMS].
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for
this legislation. I am the prime spon-
sor of this bill.
The Members are going to be voting
today on whether or not to halt what
is an absolute epidemic in the growth
of the use of the lie detector gadget in
the American workplace.
One hundred eighty-two of the
Members have joined me in cosponsor-
ing this legislation. It has the support
of the American Medical Association,
the American Psycological Associa-
tion, the AFL-CIO, the American Civil
Liberties Union.
These organizations join me in op-
posing all specific exemptions and
weakening substitute.
Similar legislation passed this House
last year by a vote of 236 to 173; and it
had, as does this bill, broad bipartisan
support.
0 1215
Yes, there is an epidemic explosion
in the growth of the use of lie detector
in the United States. The American
Polygraph Association tells us that
last year there were 2 million lie detec-
tors tests given in the United States,
and that number has tripled in just
the past 10 years.
Now, when folks hear that there
have been 2 million tests given, they
say, "Well, sure, that's the FBI, the
CIA, the National Security Council,
and local police giving those tests."
Not true. Ninety-eight percent of the 2
million tests given last year were not
given by public agencies. They were
given by private employers against
their employees and 75 percent of
those 2 million tests were given
against people who were only applying
for a job. They had not been accused
of any wrongdoing. It is the 18-year-
old who wants to be a stenographer,
and they say, "Come here, sit down.
We are going to strap you in and make
you prove that your are not guilty of
something."
Only about one-fourth of the tests
are given to investigate workers who
might be accused, usually wrongly ac-
cused, of some crime or other.
The broad support for lie detectors
stems from the simple fact that there
Is no scientific evidence that shows
that these gadgets, these so-called lie
detectors work. Employers in this
country have been deceived by the
myth that a metal box plugged into a
wall socket can detect truth from lies.
If you believe that somehow all liars
have universal physiological responses,
that is, they all perspire about the
same rate, their respiration increases
at about the same rate, their heart
beat increases at about the same rate,
across all liars in the United States,
then you think the gadget works. I
suggest that that is like believing in
Pinnochio. You believe that when you
lie something physiological happens to
you. In the case of Pinnochio, his nose
got longer. In the case of the accused,
you start to perspire more.
There has been much made here on
the floor of the House about the use
of the lie detector by the Federal Gov-
ernment. Yes the Federal Government
uses them. Two percent of the tests
given last year were given by all public
agencies, including the Federal Gov-
ernment. But the Federal Government
gives them in ways far different than
private employers do.
The Department of Defense is a user
of lie detectors, but this Congress
limits the number of lie detector ex-
aminations that can be given by that
Department. The Department of De-
fense itself has regulations that in-
volve the preinterview, the test itself is
given under specific controlled condi-
tions, postinterviews, and again they
limit the number they give. Then they
forbid themselves down at the Depart-
ment of Defense to use the lie detector
as the sole determinant as to a per-
son's questionability or lack or ques-
tionability.
Do they work? Well, they might be
85 percent effective, according to the
people who support the gadget.
Now, let us see what that means. Let
us say that an employer has 1,000 job
applications and the employer sus-
pects that 10 percent, or about 100 of
those 1,000 job applications, are dis-
honest people, about 10 percent. So he
gives the lie detector teats.
Now, if it works at the maximum, at
85 percent, that means that 85 out of
the 100 people that they suspect, 85 of
them will be correctly identified by
the lie detector but remember, 15 per-
cent of them, or 135 prospective em-
ployees, will be misidentified.
Thus, here is what happens. The lie
detector will accuse out of the 1,000, it
will accuse 220 suspects, of whom 61
percent will be wrongly identified.
Out our way in Montana, we like
western music, and I will close with
this for now, my friends. There is a
song by a Western singer called Tom
T. Hall and there is a line in that song
that says: "If you hang them all, you
will get the guilty."
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. BARTLETT].
(Mr. BARTLETT asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to H.R. 1212 and to
urge a "yes" vote in support of many
of the amendments that will be of-
fered to help to do what some of the
sponsors of the bill say that they want
to do.
I would like for the House in these
remaining minutes to back up just a
little bit and cut through the smoke
and the haze and talk about what H.R.
1212 actually does.
Now, some of the proponents and
the speakers have said that they be-
lieve that the polygraph either never
works or almost never works and thus
they would prohibit it. They would say
it should never be used. Yet the bill
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
11 9538 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
itself provides, authorizes the use of
the polygraph by Government agen-
cies.
Others would say that the poly-
graph is an imperfect tool and some-
times does not work, and yet this bill
before us. and make no mistake about
it, prohibits the use of the polygraph
by any employer other than a Govern-
ment agency, prohibits them in post-
employment, prohibits it in the case
of theft, prohibits it in the case of
preemployment, prohibits no matter
what the occupational needs are of
those employees.
Let us back up to a few facts. First,
this bill in its form today does not
clarify the use of the polygraph. It
does not limit the use of the poly-
graph. It does not correct abuses. It
simply prohibits the use of a poly-
graph examination which is currently
being used as one tool, as one determi-
nant in preemployment and postern-
ployment theft.
So we do not have before us a bill
that somehow corrects abuses. We
have a bill before us that eliminates
the use of the polygraph in all but
Government agencies.
Second, it does have law enforce-
ment implications, and I think we
ought to understand that. If you do
not believe that or do not understand
It, well, call your local ponce depart-
ment at call your defense contractor
who has to to to enforce =Waal se-
curity.
The fact is that when a theft or a
breech or a violation of health or
safety has occurred in a nursing home
or a btu* or &defense coat:actor, that
employer uses a variety of determi-
nants to determine who they can
eliminate as suspects and then turns
the criminal case over to the police.
Take away that tool, and you take
away the law enforcement agency's
ability to enforce the law.
Third, let us examine the civil rights
argument that is so often trotted out
and is overused it is somewhat trite.
It has been said that the polygraph
is not permitted as evidence in a crimi-
nal case in a court of law, and that is
true; but the fact is that when employ-
ers hire employees we have long un-
derstood that those employers use all
kinds of tests that are not allowed in a
court of law. They use literacy tests
sometimes if it is part of the job quali-
fications. They use hearsay evidence
by cheecking references. They inter-
view employees without the presence
of an attorney.
References are used. Hearsay evi-
dence is used. Interviews are used
without the rules of evidence.
Now, the fact is that the polygraph
has changed and that in today's world
the use of the polygraph is not used
by industry as a sole determinant be-
cause industry is trying to hire and to
find qualified employees. Industry
uses and business uses today, and we
have evidence and testimony in the
hearing record, industry uses the po-
lygraph as one determinant, as one in-
dicator, just like they use references,
just like they Use personal interviews,
just like they sometimes use written
examinations. They . use it as one de-
terminant.
This bill does not say that they
could use it as one determinant This
bill would say that under no circum-
stances can a polygraph be used as any
- indication. That is not fair to the
other employees and it is not fair to
the customers and it is not fair to the
individual homeowners who those em-
ployees will be entering their homes at
all times of the day or night, and it is
not fair to the consumer.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a "yes" vote
for the Darden-Young substitute
which does what many Of the propo-
nents of H.R. 1212 say they want to
do, and that is to limit abuses, correct
abuses, provide a framework, adopt
minimum standards. If that is what we
want to do, let us adopt minimum
standards.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself the balance of the 30 sec-
onds I have left.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARTINEZ. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Michigan [Mr. Conran].
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend blare-
marks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mt Chairman, this bid will
provide important and-needed protection for
hundreds of thousands of workers who am
victimized each year by weldable and intru-
sive paiygReff
Compulsory polygraphs as a preemploy-
ment testing demise represent a threat to all
job- -seekers. additionally, there is mounting
evidence that they represent an even more
serious danger to black workers. What the
new evidence- indicates i that the polygraph
is not only a threat to the privacy of all, but is
a special threat to equal opportunity for black
Americans.
None of this evidence may represent con-
clusive proof that polygraphs discriminate
along racial lines. But it certainly constitutes
Important danger signs. The data reflects
something that is already widely accepted:
that the most important determinant in the ac-
curacy of polygraph testing is the tester. What
this new data suggests is that testers just
bring their own subjective biases to the proc-
ess.
The fight for equal employment opportunity
in this country has not been an easy one, but
we have made much progress in recent years.
We cannot afford to see those gains eroded
through back door means.
The unreliability and intrusiveness of poly-
graphs is reason enough to pass H.R. 1212.
The evidence that they are also racially
biased makes it absolutely imperative.
I am attaching to these remarks the follow-
ing documents which are part of that mount-
ing body of evidence of the racially discrimina-
tory nature of the polygraph:
The opinion of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois in the case of
Moon v. Cook County Police end Corrections
Merit Bank No. 78 C 1572 (Jan. 18, 1980).
The court there found that the plaintiffs had
presented sufficient evidence to establish that
November 4, .1987
the defendant's preemployment polygraph test
failed blacks at a significantly higher rate than
whites. The case settled after this court ruling
and the settlement included an agreement to
eliminate the polygraph requirement.
The complaint in Johneon v. Aildiallaf'S
inc., No. 85 Civ. 9691, filed Dec. 12,1985, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern Dis-
trict of New York. charging that InalYgraPff
tests have a racially discriminatory effect.
Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the complaint de-
scribe the findings made by the New York
States Division of Human Rights before the
case was filed in Federal court. The division
found the charge of discrimination supported
by probable cause. The case was settled for
$25,000.
A statistical report by John van Nam, chair-
man of Columbia University's Department of
Statistics, filed in support of the complaint in
Johnson versus Alexander's. The statistical
analysis is based on. data on polygraph tests
outcomes admitted by the defendant. Over a
15-month period, during which more than
1,000 applicants were tested. 73.4 peseta of
the whites passed the test, while only 63.6
percent of the blacks passed.
EEOC Decision No. 79-44, February 23,
1979. The Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission determined that a charge of dis-
crimination was supported by reasonable
cuase In a case where the applicant was re-
jected on "psychological seaside" for falling a
polygraph '1st the evidence Showed that
blacks nem -pauchdlogiesitydiequalllied at
higher rate then whites.
An .exeserpt -bent a report by The *flee of
Technology Assessmenton "Scientific Validly
of Polygraph Testing A Research Review and
Evaluation" (November 1983). The OTA's
report states that research conducted ENNIS-
culturally Indicates Matthew we ethnic differ-
ences in response to stress that may affect
the detection of deception.
An excerpt from an article by Paul R. Sack-
ett and Phillip J. Decker, "Detection of Decep-
tion in the Employment Context A Review
and Critical Analysis," Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 32 (1979). The avow** refer to research
evidence of ethnic differences in physiological
reactivity to stress that could affect the accu-
racy of test results for different groups. They
also note "the potential for factor* such as
first knprersions, prefedices and stereotypes
to consciously or unconsciously affect the
overall judgment made by tits examiner."
An article by Daniel Justin, lies, Dam
Lies?and Polygraphs," from The National
magazine, December 51, 1985, discussing the
discriminatory aspect, of polygraphs.
[In the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, No.
78 C 15723
Hamm L. Moon, annum. v. Coca Courry
POLICE AND COARECEIONE MEW BOARD,
Jams L. 0/Caers, Sumer 1 BEICNER,
NAMED. W. NOLAN. E. 'Jams Onanurr,
Ronan, C. Commies, IVO, POI:MADE LAN.
ORATORY, DEFENDENTS.
OEM
This cause comes before the court on
plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate's
order of September IT, 1879 recommending
that defendant's 1100LION for simunary judg-
ment be granted and the ems deadened. Per
the reasons herein stated. this court, after
reviewing the additional evidence presented
after the Magistrate's report, denies defend-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05 : CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
ant's motions to dismiss and for surnmarY
Judgment.
Also before the court is plaintiff's motion
to certify the class. For the reasons herein
stated, this motion is granted.
Plaintiff. Harold Moon, a black, brings
this action challenging the creation, admin-
istration, evaluation, and use of polygraph
teats administered to applicants for the po-
sition of Cook County Correctional officer.
Plaintiff, after taking the polygraph test,
was informed that he had not received a sat-
isfactory grade on it and, consequently, was
rejected as an applicant. Plaintiff brings
this suit alleging that the polygraph tests
discriminate against blacks in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. a 2000e, et seq., 42 U.S.C. a a 1981 and
1983, and the Fourteenth Amendment.
The defendant, in moving for summary
judgment and dismissal, contends that there
can be no discrimination where, as here,
twice as many blacks as whites were hired as
Correctional Officers over the five year
period covering 1974-1978.
However, summary judgment under Rule
56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is an
extreme remedy which should be sparingly
employed. City National Bank of Port
Smith, Arkansas V. Vanderboom, 422 F.2d
221, 223 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 300 U.S. 905
(1970); Homan Mfg. Co. v. Long, 242, F.2d
645 (7th Cir. 1957). It should be entered
only when "the pleadings, depositions, an-
swers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issues as to any ma-
terial fact and that the moving party is enti-
tled to Judgment as a matter of law." Rule
56, Fed.R.Civ.P.
The basic mission of the summary judg-
ment procedure is to allow a court to pierce
the pleadings and assess proof in order to
see whether there is a genuine need for a
trial. Gauck v. Meleski, 348 F.2d 433 (5th
Cir. 1965). Issue finding and not issue reso-
lution is the court's task under such proce-
dure. Hackensack Water Co. v. Village of
Nyack, 289 F. Stipp. 671 (S.D. N.Y 1968). In
performing its task, the court must draw in-
ferences from underlying facts contained in
such materials as affidavits, exhibits, and
depositions, in a light most favorable to the
non-movant. Technograph Printed Circuits,
Limited v. Methode Electronics, Inc., 356
F.2d 442, 446-7 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 384
U.S. 950 (1966). The non-movant's allega-
tions must be taken as true, to the extent
that they are consistent with its evidence
before the court. See Goodman v. Mead
Johnson & Co., 534 F.2d 566 (3d Cir. 1976),
cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038 (1977). It is the
court's duty to resolve all doubts as to the
existence of a genuine issue as to material
fact against the moving party. Technograph
Printed Circuits, Limited v. Methode Elec-
tronics, Inc., supra.
In the instant case, this court finds a clear
question of material fact as to whether the
use, administration, evaluation, and creation
of the polygraph tests employed by the Cor-
rectional Department operates discrimina-
torily against blacks.
First, we note that defendants conten-
tions, that there can be no discrimination
where twice as many blacks as whites have
been hired during the 1974-1978 period, lack
serious merit. Numerous cases have held
that a racially balanced work force cannot
immunize an employer from liability for
specific acts of discrimination, here the al-
leged employment of the polygraph test.
See e.g., Turnco Construction Corp. v. Wal-
ters, 46 L.W. 4967, 4970.
And, in the instant case, plaintiffs have es-
tablished by statistical evidence a prima
facie case of discrimination based on the in-
formation contained in defendant's files.
These statistics demonstrate that a higher
percentage of blacks failed the polygraph
test than whites taking the same test. In
fact, plaintiff's expert correctly determined
from the information available that there
was one chance in 1,000 that in 1976-1978
the proportion of blacks who failed the
polygraph would be as great as 72.5%
(where 67.5% of those taking the test was
black) if blacks had had an equal chance of
passing the test.
In 1978, 65% of those who took the poly-
graph were black and 74% of those who
failed the polygraph were black. But, 31.2%
of those taking the test were white, yet only
21.5% of those who failed were white. Plain-
tiff's expert correctly determined that the
chance that this proportion of blacks would
fail the test absent discrimination is less
than two in 10,000.
Based on the statistics, plaintiff has prof-
fered sufficient evidence to constitute a
prima facie case of discrimination.
While defendant correctly notes that the
percentage used for the number of blacks
taking the test was an assumption based on
the percentage of blacks who applied, plain-
tiff used all the information available to
him and defendants have offered no other
figure that they allege to be more precise.
While this assumption must be tested, its
mere existence without some contrary evi-
dence from defendants, is not enough to un-
dermine plaintiff's efforts to establish a
prima fade case. In fact, in Hester v. South-
ern Railway Co., 497 F.2d 1374, 1379-1381
(5th Cir. 1974), a case cited by defendants in
challenging the use of assumptions by plain-
tiff, the defendant there, unlike the defend-
ant here, offered testimony that plaintiffs
percentages were miscalculated because ap-
plicants "deselected" themselves. Defend-
ants have not offered any such testimony
nor proof explaining the basis for their
challenges to plaintiff's assumptions.
The Supreme Court case of New York City
Transit Authority v. Blazer, 99 &Ct. 1355,
1364-1366 (1979) is likewise not applicable
where, as here, defendant's have not offered
any explanation as to the likelihood that
plaintiff's assumptions are inaccurate in
tote. Moreover, in Blazer the Supreme
Court acknowledged that the available sta-
tistics could possibly have proven a prima
fade case.
This court also find it noteworthy that
plaintiff's statistics are compiled from
records which were in defendants possession
and defendant's challenges are logged
against statistics for which plaintiff could
find no records because, as defendant's
admit, "the Merit Board does not have in its
possession all of the white forms collected
in 1977 and 1978." In fact, defendants ef-
forts to undermine the validity of plaintiff's
statistics is based on less reliable assump-
tions than plaintiffs.
For the foregoing reasons, this court finds
that summary judgment and/or dismissal is
inappropriate at this Juncture . . .
[U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York]
BARBARA JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF, AGAINST,
ALEXANDER'S, INC., DEFENDANT
(Complaint)
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is an action brought pursuant to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 41 U.S.C. Section 2000e, seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief to redress
the injury done to the plaintiff. Barbara
Johnson, as a result of the defendant's
policy and practice of denying employment
to job applicants and new employees solely
on the basis of a polygraph test. The de-
fendant's polygraph tests, which are used as
11 9539
an initial condition of employment for posi-
tions at the defendant's stores in New York
State, have a substantial discriminatory
impact on job applicants and employees
who are black. These tests are not justified
by business necessity: they are not accurate
and cannot serve as a valid predictor of
future job performance. Accordingly, the
defendant's policy and practice of condition-
ing employment on polygraph test results
violates the Civil Rights Act.
JURISDICTION
2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. la 2000e-5 (f)(1) and
(1 )(3), the jurisdictional provisions of Title
VII. Because this action arises under the
laws of the United &idea, Jurisdiction also
lies under 28 U.S.C. 1331. The plaintiff
also seeks declaratory relief pursuant to 28
U.S.C. a 2201 and 2201 and Rule 57 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Barbara Johnson is a 42 year
old black woman. She is a citizen of the
United States and the State of New York,
and resides in Manhattan.
4. Defendant Alexander's, Inc. (herein-
after referred to as "Alexander's") is a cor-
poration operating a chain of department
stores. Its principal corporate office is locat-
ed at 500 Seventh Avenue, New York, New
York.
STATEMENT Or THE FACTS AND APPLICABLE LAW
A. Alexander's Denial of Employment to
Ms. Johnson.
5. Ms. Johnson applied for employment as
a "fitter-checker" (dressing room attendant)
at Alexander's in October of 1981. On or
about October 15, 1981, Ms. Johnson took
and passed the requisite written test and
was given an interview, During the inter-
view she was told that if she received the
job she would be required to submit to a
Polygraph test.
IL On October 19, 1981. Ms. Johnson
began working for Alexander's On a part
time basis. She worked every day that week
and the beginning of the next week. During
this period, she performed the duties of her
job in a satisfactory manner.
7. On October 27, 1981, Ms. Johnson was
required to take a polygraph test at Alexan-
der's Lexington Avenue store.
8. Ms. Johnson asked the polygraph exam-
iner, an Alexander's employee, what would
happen if she refused to take the test. She
was told that she would be fired. Ms. John-
son submitted to the test.
9. Ms. Johnson truthfully answered all of
the questions that were put to her during
the polygraph test. After the test was com-
pleted, she was told that she would be in-
formed of the results.
10. On October 30,1981, Ms. Johnson was
instructed to report to the store personnel
manager. The personnel manager told Ms.
Johnson that she had "failed" the poly-
graph test and that it was Alexander's
policy to terminate persons who fail the
test Ms. Johnson was discharged from em-
ployment that day.
B. Alexander's Policy and Practice of Con-
ditioning Employment on Polygraph Test
Results.
11. Ms. Johnson was denied employment
pursuant to a policy and practice of Alexan-
der's, which continues in effect to the
present, requiring all employees in certain
positions to pass a polygraph test as an ini-
tial condition of their employment.
12. The polygraph tests that are required
by Alexander's as an initial condition of em-
ployment (hereinafter referred to as "initial
polygraph tests") are administered to job
applicants and new employees before or
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
11 9540
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 4, 1987
shortly after they commence their employ-
ment at Alexander's. The tests are adminis-
tered by polygraph examine= employed by
Alexander's.
13. The initial polygraph tests are used by
Alexander's to assess whether an applicant
or new employee is being truthful or decep-
tive when answering questions relating to
his or her background, past employment
and past behavior.
14. The job applicants and new employees
who are required to submit to an initial
polygraph test are deemed to have "failed"
the test, and are denied employment, if (a)
the job applicant or employee makes admis-
sions in the course of the polygraph test
that disqualify him or her from employ-
ment; or (b) the polygraph examiner deter-
mines, by examining the charts recorded by
the polygraph machine, that the job appli-
cant or employee gave deceptive answers
during the teat.
15. The policy and practice described
above in paragraphs 11 through 14 applies
uniformly to all Alexander's stores in New
York State.
16. Ms. Johnson was denied employment
by Alexander's, pursuant to the policy and
practice described above in paragraphs 11
through 14, solely because an Alexander's
polygraph examiner determined that Ms.
Johnson's polygraph charts indicated that
she gave deceptive answers during an initial
Polygraph test.
C. The Discriminatory Impact of Alexan-
der's Employment Policy.
17. Alexander's policy and practice of de-
nying employment to job applicants and
new employees solely an the basis of the
outcome of an Initial polygraph teat results
in the disqualification of a disproportionate-
ly high percentage of black employees and
job applicants.
18. Alexander's use of polygraph tests as
an initial condition of employment is not
justified by business necessity. The initial
Polygraph tests used by Alexander's are not
accurate, cannot detect deception and are
not a valid predictor of future Job Perform-
ance.
19. By making employment decisions, in-
cluding the decision to discharge Ms. John-
son, on the basis of an employment test that
has a disparate import on blacks and is not
Justified by business necessity, Alexander's
violated and continues to violate Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.C. ?2000e-3(a).
D. Administrative Charges Filed by Ms.
Johnson.
20. On April 23, 1982, Ms. Johnson filed a
complaint with the New York State Division
of Human Rights charging Alexander's with
unlawful discrimination in employment on
the basis of race. Ms. Johnson's discrimina-
tion charge was filed with the New York
District Office of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (hereinafter re-
ferred to as "the Commisnon") on or about
June 22, 1982. The Commission deferred in-
vestigation of the charge to the State Divi-
sion of Human Rights.
21. The State Division of Human Rights
(hereinafter referred to as "the Division")
conducted an investigation of the racial
impact of Alexander's polygraph testing. On
September 19, 1985, the Division issued a de-
termination that there is probable cause to
believe that Alexander's polygraph testing
discriminates on the basis of race. The Divi-
sion's investigation found that "Itlhe fig-
ures Ion the racial Impact of polygraph test-
ing at Alexander's) establish that Black em-
ployees fail the polygraph test at a statisti-
cally significantly higher rate than others.
. . ." Additionelly the respondents have not
shown that the use of the polygraph is a
compelling business necessity. . . ." ("Basis
for Probable Csnise," dated September 13,
1985). ?
22. On November 15, 1981, the Commis-
sion issued a Nodes of Right to Sue author-
izing Ms. Johnsoik to file ? civil action in
federal district court The Notiee of Right
to Sue was issued at Ms. Johnson's request,
pursuant to 20 C.P.R. 9 1601.28(a), because
more than 189 days hal darned einem the
filing of Ms. Johnson's charge with the
Commission.
PRAM 'OR Run"
Wherefore, plaintiff requests that the
Court:
A. Declare, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. i 2201.
that Alexander's policy and practice of de-
nying employment to job applicants and
new employees solely on the basis of the
outcome of an initial polygraph test violates
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 9 30006-2(a),
B. Enjoin Alexander's from continuing RE
use of initial polygraph tests as a condition
of employment;
C. Order Alexander's to offer the plaintiff
reinstatement to her position, and award
her back pay and all other benefits of em-
ployment from the date of her discharge;
D. Award the plaintiff reasonable attor-
neys' fees and the costs and disbursements
incurred in the prosecution of this action.
E. Grant such other relief as may be
deemed appropriate.
Dated: New York, NY, December 12,
1985.
Respectfully submitted,
Mummer K. Moon,
Joe Bum,
(Legal Action Center
of the City of New
York, Inc.)
Attorneys for Plain-
tiff, Barbara John-
son
STATIST/CAL RZPORT mu TEE CASE Or Jommsom
wants Immouotomal
(By John Van Ryzin, Ph.D., Chairman, De-
partment of Statistics and Professor, Divi-
sion of Biostatistics, Columbia University)
strannute
This report covers a statistical analysis of
the results of "initial polygraph tests" and
"security interviews" administered by Alex-
ander's from August 1, 1980 through Octo-
ber 27, 1981. The statistical analysis seeks to
address the question: Does the administra-
tion of the initial polygraph test given by
Alexander's show substantially different
pass _ proportions for blacks and whites,
which are not attributable to chance by
usual statistical practices? In answering this
question, the analysis is done for the com-
parison of the black pass proportion with
the white pass proportion, and for the com-
parison of the black pass proportion with
the pass proportion for all non-blacks.
The defining characteristics of the "initial
polygraph test" and "security interview" are
described in the Pretrial Order 5Stipulated
Facts, 9 14-21). The initial polygraph test is
part of the security interview procedure. In-
dividuals may fail the security interview
either (1) by failing the initial polygraph
test (i.e., such persons are found, by means
of the polygraph test, to have been decep-
tive in answering test questions), or (2) by
making admissions that disqualify them
from employment. To analyze the racial
impact of the initial polygraph teat, my
analysis excludes instances where Alexan-
der's records indicate that failure was based
upon disqualifying admissions.
However, if Alexander's records are found
to be insufficiently reliable in distinguishing
between persons who failed the security
interview solely because of a finding of de-
ception on the polygraph test, and Persons
who failed because of admissions, then the
data concerning the results of the overall
"security interview" may be viewed as the
best available measure of the initial poly-
graph test's impact on different groups. Ac-
cordingly, I have also done a statistical anal-
ysis for the comparison of black and white
pass proportions, and for the comparison of
black and non-black pass proportions for
the data on the results of the security inter-
view (i.e., including admissions).
Based on the detailed analysis carried out
below, I conclude that, for the initial poly-
graph test, the black pass proportion of 83.6
percent versus the higher white Pass Pro-
portion of 73.4 percent is not due to chance
alone. In fact, the probability of the white
pass proportion being this much higher
than the black pass proportion Is approxi-
mately .001 (one in a thousand). This is -
based on a difference in the pan propor-
tions of 3.11 standard deviation units. The
standard deviation analysis measures, in
standard statistical units of variation, the
significance of the disparity between the ob-
served difference in the pass proportions
and the result one would expect to find in a
race-neutral test: no difference in the pass
proportions for blacks and whites. A stand-
ard deviation of more than 2 units is com-
monly considered by statisticians as not due
to chance alone. A similar analysis, of the
black pass proportion of 63.6 percent versus
the non-black pass proportions of 70.9 per-
cent has a standard deviation of 2.82 units.
The probability that such a larger pass pro-
portion for non-blacks is due to chance
alone is approximately .002 (two in one
thousand).
Furthermore, if one compares the propor-
tions for the entire "security interview" pro-
cedure (I.e., including admissions), the re-
sults are as followe (1) Per the black pass
proportion of 58.2 percent versus the white
pass proportion of 70.4 percent, the stand-
ard deviation is 3.86 units, representing a
probability of approximately .0001 (one in
the ten thousand) that the larger white pass
proportion was due to chance alone. (2) For
the black pass proportion of 58.2 percent
versus the non-black pass proportion of 86.1
percent, the standard deviation is 3.07 units,
representing a probability of approximately
.001 (one Ins thousand) that the larger non-
black pass proportion was due to chance
alone.
The above statements are justified in a
more detailed explanation which is Present-
ed in the remainder of the report. Based on
the above results, I conclude there is clear
statistical evidence that, black applicants
and new employees given the initial poly-
graph tests administered by Alexander's
during the period cited had a significantly
lower pass proportion on the test when com-
pared with both whites or non-blacks; and,
furthermore these differences are not rea-
sonably attributable to chance alone. Thus,
I conclude that the initial polygraph test
administered by Alexander's has an unfa-
vorable impact on black applicants or new
employees. Statistical analysis of the entire
"security interview" procedure likewise
shows that the Alexander's security inter-
view has an unfavorable impact on blacks.
DETAILED ANALYSIS
The statistical analysis for the statements
presented in the summary above will now be
given in detail. The data upon which these
statements are based in given in Table 1
below. The data represented in Table 1
comes from the chart agreed upon by the
parties in the Joint Pretrial Order (Stipulat-
ed Facts, 123). This table does not include
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 9541
applicants of unknown ethnic origin and
tests for which the results are unknown.
The total number of such persons Is a mere
19 out of 1457 persons taking the test. Since
this is only 1.3 percent of all persons taking
the test, the omission of such small num.
bers would not result in statistical conclu-
sions essentially different from those given
above. Also omitted from Table 1 are five
"incomisure" test outcomes. These are
omitted because no employment decisions
were made on the basis of ineonclusive tests.
In two instances, employees failed a first
test but requested and were given a second
test. In these two cases, only the outcome of
the second test is recorded in the Table.
since only the second test resulted in an em-
ployment decision.
TABLE 1.?IXIA ON POLYGRAPH TEST RESULTS OF 1433
KNOYM CASES BY ETHNIC GROUP
Ethnic group
Test results
Aims
Pas Fs1 ?
White 240 87 14
BIM 44 2% 46
Asian 23 4 0
Native American 0 T I
Table 2 presents the pass proportions as
percentages by ethnic group with and with-
out admissions included. Note that the last
row of table 2 presents the combined rates
for all ethnic groups which are non-black.
TAME 2?PASS PERCENTAGES BY ETHNIC GROUP
Ethnic gad
PaSS ipercestars
Iddie security
Pr" Mamie*
oda%
fadmiseicon
Mita 73.4 704.
63.6 58.2
Manic 66.5 AN
A. ha 85.2
0.0 0.6
MAIM 75.0 661
To analyze the data front Tables 1 and 2,5
standard statistical technique of comparing
two binomial proportions is employed. See,
for example, Mosteller, Rourke and Thomas
(WM. pa 311)-323). LipeciScally. four anahr-
ses were- done: (1) comparing the black and
white pass proportions for the initial poly-
graph test (without admissions included).
(2) comparing the black and non-black pass
proportions for the initial polygraph test.
(3) comparing the black and white pass pro-
portions for the security interview (includ-
ing admissions), and (4) comparing the
black and non-black pass proportions for
the security interview.
A detailed explanation of the statistical
procedure used will be given in the case of
the comparison of the black and white pater
proportions for the initial polygraph teat
(lee (1) above). These results are given in
TableS below. The esniparisons in (2) to (4)
above follow a shailar procedure and the re-
sults are stated in Tables 4 to &below.
The statistical procedure used makes the
following assumptions. Swim& we have
two populations of applicants taking the
polygraph test. In ease (l), these porde-
lions are the black. applicant pooi and the
white applicant pool. We assume that the
applicants in table I are st random, sample of
the applicantt, pool for each racial group.
Under those assumptions, it is well-known
that the number of whites who pass have
what is called binomial population with un-
known pass proportion Th. The number of
white passes in this sample can be designat-
ed a,. while a4 designates the same* size for
whites. In case (1) above, ss-MO and
n.=322=240-141 (see row one of Table 1X
Similarly, the number of blacks- who pass
hose a bluomial distribution with unknown
pass proportion a. lo the sample under Ethnic group Pass Fai Total Pass proportion
study, the observed black ntnisber of passes
Is its =443, and the black sample sire
n.s= 704= 4411+25g (see row two of Table 1).
We now ask the question: is pr-it (the un-
known racial group pass proportions are the
same) as opposed to whether ps'os (the un-
known white pees proportion is higher than
the unknown black paw proportion)? To
answer this question, we begin by compel.
Mg the two observed proportions.
TABLE 3.?STATIST1CAL RESULTS FOR WHITE VERSOS
BUCK PASS PROPORTIONS ON THE mobit. POLYGRAPH
TEST
- . dared myth'
rash
_ Wsenstproportort
f2- of black passes.
The estimated standard error, here .0315,
is a measure of the expected spread of the
observed difference Statistical theory
says that if we divide the difference ;r-i& by
the estimated standard errors, we get a sta-
tistic which measures the number of nor-
malized standard deviations contained in
the observed difference in this case,
the z-value is 3.11.
.091
s-- 3.il.
s .0315
A a-value at more than 2 is commonly con-
sidered to be statistically significant. In
other word& when the revahre exceeds 21 the
observed difference in pass proportions
cannot reasonably be attributed to chance
alone.
By reference to statistical tables, the z-
value can be used to determine the probabil-
ity that the observed difference In pan pro-
portions would occur by chance. In this
case, the probability of the observed a-value
being as large or larger than 3.11 is
Prob(observed a value 3.11)
-=Probtobeerved difference >Me)
.001
That is, the probabilky of seeing an ob-
served differences as large or Wier
than .000 *f indeed the pass proportion() are
equal for the white and black applicant
pools (;,--i.)( is approximately one in a thou-
sand (1 in 1000). Bence, we can conclude
that this difference is too large to be reason-
ably attributable to chance alone. Thus,
the pass proportion for whites who take Al-
exander's initial polygraph test, ie higher
than the pass proportion for the teliula-
the of bled test-takens We can conclude
that Nadu) aunpored to soluble suffer a dis-
advantage from the initPm polygraph test
administered by Alewandees. Furthermore,
such a disadvantage cannot be attributed
band on the observed data to chance alone.
We summarize the result for the compari-
son of the white vs black pain proportions
for the initial polifgrapit teat in Table 3
below. (See (1) above).
448 2 : r4
240
Total 681 343 1,031 0.687161.7111=;
Observed riffeence of prepertlen-,-,-;..,734-.636...18/4
Estimated standard error at diflusence-8.11315.
Normalized standard deviation mks= s -.098/0315=3.11.
Probability (ikerrid germ ).11113) =Ali (Iii 1011).
TABLE 4.?STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR NON-SLACK VERSUS
BLACK PASS PROPORTIONS ON THE ININAL POLYGRAPH
TEST
Ethnic group Pan fad Total Phi propolein
lbabhdi 434 180 618 =IV-
Total 886 436 1,322 0.670(411%)..;
Oboned Own of
Estimated standard Error of Diffarera=ri..8214
Normalized standard deviation units =:--..073/.0259=2.112.
Probability (demi einem >4173)-.1412 (lb 1000).
TABLE S.?STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR WHITE VERSUS
RACK PASS PROPORTIONS ON THE SECURITY INTERVIEW
(Mc gram Pm Fait NM Pass mportim
240 101 341 0i/(14(71,45)-ii.
Bildt 448 325 770 .Nzw.nbl
geo 423 1,111 0.643(111.914,4
Obeened %foram of pnexistions.j.
Estimated standard error of deferenm=r-.03811
Norriallaestmartdmietion antI-a--lW 6016-UI
Probabilh. bakomed dillmense .022...11141 ini140(10).
TABLE 6.?STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR NON-BIACK VERSUS
BLACK PASS PROPORTIONS ON ENE SECURITY OVERVIEW
Mit gaud Pm Fd TM Pas media
Non-black. risst 2322,1 6764 (1.6544..14(a
Black
186 547 1,411 tustata4-it
Observe %Terme of progortims-Ait-A=.681
Estimated standard ener of dIfference=4.1257.
Nalbot dmiatimeolts=vii .1114/.4574103.
Pobsbiliq liwaidansw ?,1091....686 (1 ilk' Ito*
The conclusion I reach from Tables. 3
through 6 Is that if one compares the black
pass proportion to either the white or non.
black proportion for the initial polygraph
test or security interview. there is a large.
normalized standard deviation indicating
most dearly that Alexander% administra-
tion of the initial polygraph test and securi-
ty interview baa an. unfavorable Impact on
blacks.
RZPIRRITCH
Mosteller, P., Bourke, R, and Thomas,
G.B., Jr. (11)70). "Probability with Statistical
Appilcations," 2nd Ed, Adffison-Wesley
Publishing Co, Reading, MA.
POLYGRAPH TEST As BIASED IMPACT
Decision of Equal Employment Opportu-
nity Commission Decision No. 794-44, Febru-
ary 23, 1079.
TIT= VII--CIVIL =Gan OP1941
Pre-employment hiquiries-Paychological
Exam-Polygraph.-Rejection of appli-
cant for police employment because he
failed a psychiatric test war rectally de-
crhninatory where the precednres need,
which included a polygraph test, ? (Sequa&
fled black applicants at a disproportionately
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9542 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
high rate and were not shown to be related
to successful job performance.
Back reference.-11420.30.
[Full Text of EEOC Decision]
Summary Of Charge
Charging Party alleges that Respondents
engage in unlawful employment practices in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended, on the basis of race by
using hiring practices and selection proce-
dures which discriminate against Blacks.
Jurisdiction
Respondent police department is an em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 701 of
Title VII and, at the time the charge was
field, employed [number] persons. Respond-
ent Civil Service Commission, is an employ-
er within the meaning of Section 701 of
Title VII.
The charge was deferred to the (local)
Civil Rights Commission on March 26, 1973.
No investigation was made of Charging
Party's charges by the [local] Civil Rights
Commission.
The charge was timely filed with the
EEOC and all other jurisdictional require-
ments have been satisfied.
Summary of Investigation
At the time the charge was filed, Re-
spondents utilized the following procedures
to select policemen: 1) a written general
ability test administered by the Civil Service
Commission; 2) the formation of an eligibil-
ity list by the Civil Service Commission; 3) a
background investigation; 4) a physical
exam by the Department of Safety Medical
Director, 5) a written psychological exam; 6)
a psychiatric interview and evaluation of
the summaries of the background investiga-
tion and the psychological exam; 7) review
of the applicant's file by the Chief of Police;
and 8) final selection by the Director of
Public Safety.
Charging Party received a score of 81.515
on the written exam which placed him 832
on the eligiblity list. He took the polygraph
teat prior to the psychiatric and psychologi-
cal testa and was rejected on psychological
grounds as a result of ths polygraph test He
alleges that his responses to questions posed
during the polygraph were not accurately
reflected. For eitanipe, he stated that his af-
firmative answer -to a question regarding his
knowing homosexuals was recorded as "ap-
plicant admitted going with homosexuals.".
Respondent's Chief of Police denied that
Charging Party had been discriminated
against and stated that Respondent Civil
Service Commission devised and adminis-
tered tfie tests used. Respondents refused to
cooperate in the investigation of the charge,
claiming that the charges fell within the
continuing Jurisdiction of the United States
District Court ? ? ? where an action had
been brought under 42 U.S.C.A. 1 1981.
An action was filed on October 12, 1972,
by the?an organization composed principal-
ly of Black police officers, and individual
Black police officers against the city, its
Chief of Police, the Director of the Cities
Program, and members of the [city] Civil
Service Commission. The suit alleged that a
range of practices used by the Respondents
In the recruitment, testing, screening and
hiring of new patrolmen; the assignment,
treatment and promotion of current police
officers, as well as the examination adminis-
tered by the Civil Service Conunission on
July 15, 1972, had a racially discriminatory
effect on Blacks and Puerto Ricans. The
Court held that the evidence created a
prima facie case that the battery of tests
constituting the examination of July 15,
1972, had a racially discriminatory impact
upon Blacks and Puerto Ricans who took
the examination. The court fixed the mini-
mum number of appointments of Blacks
and Puerto Ricans, male and female, to be
made to the police force from the 1972 eligi-
bility list at 18 percent.
An action under 42 U.S.C.A. 1981, how-
ever, is not a bar to action by any other per-
sons who may believe that Respondents
have in the past discriminated, or are pres-
ently discriminating, against them in viola-
tion of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended. It is well established that
an action for employment discrimination in-
volving racial discrimination may be
brought under Title VII or 42 U.S.C.A,
1981. See e.g. Head v. Timken Roller Bear-
ing Company [6 EPD ? 88761. 486 F.2d 870
(6th Cir. 1973), Tay/or v. Safeway Stores,
Inc. [10 EPD 1 10.410]. 54 F.2.d 263 (10th
Cir. 1975) where it was held that 42 U.S.C.A.
? 1981 is an independent cause of action
which may be maintained either concur-
rently with a claim under Title VII or with-
out exhausting Title VII remedies and Boles
v. Union Camp Corp., 57 FRD 46 (S.D. Ga.
1972) 5 EPD 1 8051 where a class action was
brought by several Black employees of
Union Camp Corporation and by two former
black employees and two blacks who were
rejected under Title VII and 42 U.S.C.A.
1981.
Although Charging Party successfully
completed the eligibility exam, he was re-
jected for employment. The rejection of the
Charging Party was based on psychiatric
unfitness. An analysis of the points of rejec-
tion reveal wide disparities in the percent-
ages of Blacks and Whites rejected. For ex-
ample, 7.9 percent of Whites were rejected
because of background while 19.3 percent of
Blacks were rejected; .79 percent of Whites
were rejected for psychological reasons
(consisting of an IQ test and personality
test) while 8.7 percent of Blacks were reject-
ed; 16.90 percent of Whites were rejected
for psychiatric reasons while 39.3 percent of
Blacks were rejected; 28.30 percent of
Whites were rejected for medical reasons
while 18.7 percent of Blacks were rejected.
It is well established that employment
tests and qualifications which have a dispro-
portionate exclusionary effect on minority
applicants and do not have a demonstrable
relationship to successful performance on
the job are prohibited. See e.g. Griggs v.
Duke Power Co. [3 EPD 181371, 401 U.S.
424, 431 (1971), Castro v. Beecher [4 EPD
1 7783], 459 P. 2d 725 (1st Cir. 1972).
Furthermore, the Commission has held
that the use of any test which adversely af-
fects the hiring, promotion, transfer, or any
other employment or membership opportu-
nity of classes protected by Title VII consti-
tutes discrimination unless: a) the test has
been validated and evidences a high degree
of utility and b) the person giving or acting
upon the results of the particular test can
demonstrate that alternative suitable
hiring, transfer, or promotion procedures
are unavailable. See EEOC Guidelines on
Employment Selection, 29 CFR I 1607.3.
Conclusion
In view of the disproportionate impact of
Respondents' selection procedures on
Blacks, and in the absence of validation of
the procedures, We conclude that there is
reasonable cause to believe that Respond-
ents violate Title VU of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended, on the basis of race by
using hiring practices and selection proce-
dures which discriminate against Blacks.
SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY OF POLYGRAPH TESTING:
A RESEARCH REVIEW AND EVALUATION
HnINIC AND GROUP DIFFERENCES
Another category of subject differences
that may affect polygraph validity has to do
with ethnic and group differences in physics-
November 4, 1987
logical response. Research conducted cross
culturally (e.g., 97,104,158), indicates that
there are ethnic differences in response to
stress. Such differences may, in turn, affect
detection of deception. As noted earlier,
these effects may interact with the ethnic
identification of the examiner. However, ef-
fects of ethnic differences have not been di-
rectly tested with respect to polygraph ex-
aminations.
AUTONOMIC LIABILITY
A final individual difference is what Waid
and Orne (194) have referred to as automat-
ic lability. Regardless of other differences
among subjects, there may be consistent in-
dividual differences connected with their
level of automatic arousal.
Although there is considerable variance
for an individual in autonomic responses to
most physiological measures of automatic
nervous system (ANS) arousal, electroder-
mei lability may be different. Given the im-
portance of the EDR for polygraph exami-
nations, it may be essential to understand
more about this factor. Unfortunately, most
of this research (e.g., 200) has been conduct-
ed with concealed information tests and not
with CQT or R I tests.
SZTFING
One theory underlying lie detection using
the polygraph is that the threat of punish-
ment leads an individual to mini eat a phys-
iological reaction (48). This suggests, then,
that settings in which an individual is more
certain of being detected and in which the
consequences are greatest, will permit
higher levels of detection. Furthermore, in
order to be certain of being detected, a sub-
ject must believe in the efficagy of the poly-
graph procedures in order for it to function.
According to some (e.g., 194), the polygraph
Is often used somewhat like a "stage prop,"
and its presence is meant to "enhance the
subject's concern." Stimulation tests, used
in almost all field polygraph examinations,
serve the same function, albeit more direct-
ly. There is considerable discussion (e.g.,
202) in the literature about how frequently
within a polygraph examination such stimu-
lation tests should be utilized in order to in-
crease the validity of the examination.
=STROM=
Some research, reported by Orne and his
colleagues, addresses the question of the sit-
uational features necessary for a polygraph
examination. In one component of a study
reported by Orne, et al. (123), subjects were
led to believe that the polygraph recording
equipment was not operative. There was
some indication that the pretest condition
in which subjects were led to believe that
the polygraph instrument was inoperative
produced a lower detectability', however, re-
sults were not statistically significant. In an
earlier study (161), detectability was not af-
fected by eubjects' belief in whether the ma-
chine was recording. Both of these studies
involved use of concealed information tests.
A more recent study by Ornee group (198)
tested a similar hypothesis using a different
procedure. In this study, subjects saw the
polygraph machine turned off, althoUgh the
experimenters actually ran the leads to a
second polygraph device and were able to
record responses during a pretest review of
questions. The results indicated that sub-
jects who were aware of being recorded had
significantly higher responses to relevant
questions and not significantly different re-
sponses to control questions.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
DETECTION Or DECIPTION IN TEM EMPLOY-
maw Corroxr A REvrevr AND CRITICAL
ANALYSIS
(By Paul R. Sackett and Phillip J. Decker)
Empirical research on the validity of the
polygraph, voice stress analysis, and paper
and pencil instruments as mechanisms for
the detection of deception is reviewed.It Is
noted that while these devices have their
greatest use in the employment context, vir-
tuaily all research has been done in an
settle or simulated criminal investigation
context. Three separate uses of devices for
the detection of deception in the employ-
ment context are identified, namely, pm-
employment screening, periodic screening of
current employees, and investigation into a
specific theft. Differences between each of
these nos and the criminal investigation
context are identified, and issues limiting
the generallsability of research findings
from one context to another are raised.
Among the issues are the effects of a low
base rate of guilt on accuracy, the effects of
making multiple judgments on overall accu-
racy, and the potential for racial or ethnic
bias in judgments of guilt or innocence.
An extensive body of literature exists on
the topic of the detection of deception and
Investigation of theft using various tech-
niques, including interpretation of physio-
logical responses and questionnaries. Very
littleel this Literature has appeared in my-
thological journals. Most reports are con-
tained in polygraph trade publications or
law enforcement publications. Lykken
(1978b) discussed the lack of involvement by
psychologists in this fled, labeling it a case
of "policemen rushing in where science
fears to tread,"
Regardless of who has done the research
or its quality, the vast majority of poly-
graph examinations are conducted in the
employment context rather than the crimi-
nal investigation context (U.S. Senate,
1974). However, virtually all reported re-
search has dealt with actual or simulated
criminal investigations.
REACTIONS TO POLYGRAPH IXAMINATIONS
The questions raised in this paper have fo-
cused on the accuracy of polygraph exami-
nations. It should be noted that a number of
objections to the polygraph ean be made on
ethical, social, and constitutional grounds.
Among these are objections that the poly-
graph is an invasion of privacy and an in-
fringement on the dignity of man, that it re-
verses the principle that one is innocent
until proven guilty by requiring Individuals
to prove their hmocestee, and that K. violates
5th amendment rights against Self inoriint-
nation. Proponents of the polygraph reply
that individual rights must be weighed
against employer losses and that individuals
have an obligation to society to cooperate in
attempts to identify dishonest individuals
(Shattuck, Brown, and Carlson, Note 6).
The stand one takes regarding the poly-
graph may be largely determined by wheth-
er one's sympathies lie with the individual
or the employer.
Another issue of interest. is the attitude of
applicants and employees toward the poly-
graph examination. Ash and Wheeler (Note
7) report that 86 percent of applicants
thought the examination was fair, 96 per-
cent were willing to take the test to get a
job, and percent were willhig to routinely
take an axon St a condition of employntent.
They interpret theme results as indicating
that resistance to the polygraph has been
overestimated. However, all participants
completed the attitude questionnaire after
the polygraph examination. Thus, the ques-
tionnaire may have been viewed as part of
the selection procedure, and applicants may
have felt that expressing negative attitudes
toward the examination would affect their
chances for employment. Further research
I. needed in a setting in which no negative
outcome may be anticipated by the subjects
due to expression of negative attitudes.
BIAS IN POLYGRAPH EXAMINATIONS
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
prohibits diserimination in employment de-
cisions on the basis of race, color, religion,
sex, and national origin. Two potential
sources of bias In polygraph examinations
have been identified. The first involves pos-
sible racial, ethnic, or sexual differences in
physiological reactivity to psychological
stress. Kugelmass and Liebilch (1968) have
shown that persons of Eastern mediterrane-
an origin show CBE non-reactivity more
often than other ethnic groups. Relying on
different physiological measures for differ-
ent subgroups may result in differential ac-
curacy across subgroups. It should be noted
that ethnic differences in Ot3R level (e.g.
Johnson and Comb., 1963; Lazarus. Tornita,
Opton. and Kodama. 1966) do not constitute
a threat to polygraph accuracy, since the
subjects' responses to irrelevant or control
questions are compared with their responses
to relevant questions.
Second, and perhaps of greater interest. is
the potential for factors such as first im-
pressions. prejudices, and stereotypes to
consciously or unconsciously affect the
overall judgment made by the examiner.
Ome. Thackray, and Paskewitz (1972) have
suggested that "the manner In which ques-
tions are asked can certainly influence the
physiological response. The interrogator
wishing to obtain a record with physiologi-
cal evidence of deception is likely to be able
to do so. In view of the work of Rosenthal
(1966) on experimenter bias, it seems ex-
tremely likely that the interrogator could
unwittingly communicate some aspects of
his conviction to the subject" (p. 7511.
There are no published field studies report-
ing information on the percent of deceptive
and nondeceptive judgments among the var-
ious protected classes. Such information
should be readily available and deserves to
be reported.
There is one appelate court case confirm-
ing the gEOC's right of access to polygraph
records (Circle I Corporation vs EEOC).
The information sought by the EEOC is in-
structive: 'a list of all applicants and
present employees subjected to the poly-
graph examination, their racial/ethnic iden-
tity and whether they were accepted or re-
jected documentation of thC nature, stand-
ardization and validity of the polygraph
test, and a list of questions asked of each ap-
plicant qualifications of the examiners who
administered the tests ? ? ?" (P. 1054). The
EEOC was granted access to this informa-
tion, but a case involving discrimination on
the basis of the polygraph examination has
not come to trial. There have, however,
been a number of cases in which the subjec-
tive nature of the decision made in an em-
ployment interview had been identified as
having the potential for discrimination (e.g.,
Hester vs Southern Railway Co., Causey vs
Font Minor Co.). On the other hand, one
Interview case has upheld the employer's
right to subjective evaluation unless there is
evidence of bias, (Salton vs Western Elea-
trio). Thus, an examination based solely on
the interpretation of polygraph charts may
be on stronger legal grounds than one in-
volving both charts and an evaluation of the
exitininee'S verbal and nonverbal behavior.
[From the Nation, Dec. 21, 19881
Lim DANN lass?Aim POLYGRAPHS
(By Daniel Jussim)
A machine that monitors blood pressure,
respiration and the attin's electrical conduo
, ? , ,
H 9543
Wily is depriving tens of thoommds of law-
abiding people of jobs every year. Used by
employers as a, means to ends both dubious
and devious, the polygraph in nevertheless
becoming as familiar as the time clock in
more and more American workplaces. In the
private sector alone, estimates of the
number of polygraph tests admintitered an-
nually range from several hundred thou-
sand to 2 million. The American Polygraph
Association says that three-quarters of
them are used In pre-employment screening.
A Presidential directive revealed last week
swells the number of Federal employees
who must undergo examination.
The test Is most commonly used by busi-
nesses in which low-level employees handle
large sums of cash daily in return for
modest checks weekly, such as banks, res-
taurants and department Stores. But all
kinds of concerns tap into their workers'
supposedly telltale heartbeats: meatpacking
companies, hospitals and even the Yale
Club have used "lie detectors" to screen pro-
spective employees, check upon workers pe-
riodically or track down culprits in the wake
of a theft or act of sabotage. Usually a secu-
rity firm is hired to do the dirty work, but
some businesses have in-house operations.
Because employers who favor polygraph
testing generally make it a condition of em-
ployment, workers find it difficult to. refuse
to take the teat.
The machine is especially popular among
employers who resent Federal and State
regulations on hiring and tiring; its reputa-
tion and supposedly scientific tool gives
them a license to reject or sack whomever
they please. Polygraph victims can almost
never prove that an employer acted illegal-
ly. We didn't fire you bemuse you're getting
old and costing us too mach., a company can
argue; we fired you bosuns the polygraph
says you're a thief.
Don Mews, once a. manager for a depart-
ment store chain in the Carolinas. Provided
a glimpse into polygraph practices when he
testified before a Senate Judiciary subcom-
mittee in 1.978. According to Blows, his dis-
trict supervisor told blue that blacks "just
don't work out" and ordered him to dismiss
two black woman workers. Blame said that
when he refused, the supervisor remarked,
"we'll haw to show you. hoer our polygraph
test works around here." The women were
subsequently fired, after their test results
Indicated "a sign of a passibility of deceit."
His bosses also Mined down the only two
blacks whom be had ever recommended for
management trainee positions. again on the
basis of the polygraph teak Others who lost
their jobs at Blewes store ineluded a woman
who confessed that her boyfriend used to
smoke anarttuems, a woman who admitted
that she occessiorsally antlered from mi-
graines, an employee atm said her heart
condition made it unsafe for .her to take the
test and two high-school pairt-timers whom
the polygraph examiner refused to fit into
his schedule. Bien also testified that "the
polygraph companies used by my employer
apparently had a (meta of employees they
had to fire at every round of testing in order
to show that the testing wan accomplishing
something and that the east 0 ? ? was justi-
fied." Bina was fired after protesting
gannet ninon of the ton?but not before
taking an examination himself and being se-
cond ad giving deceptbm anniera.
Besides using eleetemtio inquests to dis-
crindnate against racial minorities, compa-
nies use then to spat devianbi of all stripes.
In 1972 workers at the Coors brewery
struck. partly isnatme they objected to the
company's voyeurism the polygraph agency
employed by Coors asked job applicants
these questions: What are your sexual pref.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9544
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE November 4, 1987
erences? How often do you change your un-
derwear? Have you ever done anything with
your.wife that could be considered immoral?
Are you a homosexual? Are you a Commu-
nist?
Union organizers have also been targets.
The National Labor Relations Board recent-
ly ruled on a case involving two waitresses
who tried to organize the Shoney's restau-
rant chain in Georgia. One of them, Maria
Sganga, was fired on the basis of informa-
tion she revealed during the interview pre-
ceding a polygraph examination, The com-
pany said she admitted she had taken home
some leftover potatoes and parsley, a viola-
tion of company rules even though she had
her manager's permission. Patricia Burch,
the other waitress, had refused to sign the
test consent form, which in Georgia permits
the examiner to inquire about a worker's fi-
nances and military service. She considered
her finances her own business and didn't
want to be questioned about the military be-
cause her husband was in the service. She
offered to sign a revised consent form but
VMS fired nonetheless, for actions her boss
considered tantamount to refusing the poly-
graph test.
N.L.R.B. Judge Richard J. Linton ruled
that Shoney's "discharged Sganga and
Burch because of their union and other pro-
tected ? ? ? activities," adding that the com-
pany "would not have ordered the poly-
graph tests in the absence of such activi-
ties." He ordered them ?reinstated with back
pay.
In the course of the hearing, a director of
operations for Shoney's testified that he
uses the polygraph "to keep people honest,"
that is, as a deterrent to theft. Jay Harvey,
director of legislation for the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s
food and allied services trades department,
whose federated union members are often
subjected to polygraph testa, says the prac-
tice is common: "There are two kinds of em-
ployers who use the polygraph. The kind
who honestly have the mistaken belief that
the machines work?that's the minority.
The majority of employers know that the
machine is not necessarily reliable," but be-
lieve, as Richard Nixon put it, that poly-
graphs "scare the hell out of people."
Even employers simply seeking job-related
information from applicants may end up in-
vading their workers' privacy. People inter-
rogated while hooked up to a pneumatic
chest tube, a blood-pressure cuff and a gal-
vanic skin-response indicator often come
away feeling humiliated and violated. Poly-
graph foes have thus dubbed the tests psy-
chological rubber-hose treatments and
mental strip searches, The New York State
Attorney General's Office has charged sev-
eral examiners with sexual harrassment.
Carlin Meyer, who heads the office's labor
bureau, says the office receives at least ten
polygraph-related complaints each week.
A recent court case in Chicago revealed
that blacks may suffer the adverse conse-
quences of polygraph errors more frequent-
ly than whites. In a discrimination suit
brought in U.S. District Court, individuals
seeking jobs as prison guards proved to the
satisfaction of the court that blacks fail pre-
employment polygraph tests more often
than whites. Jon Bauer, a staff attorney for
the Legal Action Center of New York, a
public interest law firm that has litigated
several polygraph cases, believes that the
discrepancy may result from differences be-
tween blacks and whites physiological re-
sponses to stress, tensions between white ex-
aminers and black subjects, or prejudices
that can enter into an examiner's evalua-
tion, which relies as much on subjective im-
pressions as on squiggles on a chart. In any
case, said Bauer "we should not tolerate a
test that has a discriminatory effect on
blacks when there is no adequate evidence
that the test is valid."
Losing one's job or not getting hired be-
cause of failure to pass a polygraph test can
have disastrous consequences. A toy-depart-
ment manager who was fired by one compa-
ny after flunking a test (he had high blood
pressure, which can skew test results) was
dismissed from his next Job after six
months, when his new boss learned of the
previous exam. In effect, the man had been
blackballed in the toy industry.
In another form of polygraph double jeop-
ardy, job seekers who have failed a test as
applicants at one company find themselves
facing the same Polygraph agency when
they look for work with a different employ-
er. When the agency reports that they pre-
viously failed the test, they are sent on
their way,
More than twenty states and the District
of Columbia have passed legislation limiting
polygraph Use by private employers. All of
the laws prohibit companies from "requir-
ing" the tests, but ten states permit firma to
"request" that individuals take them. Viola-
tions are considered a misdemeanor and
generally punished with a small fine. Em-
ployers seeking to skirt the law have several
options. Large chain stores in regulated
states can hire employees in an adjacent
state that has no polygraph statute and
then transfer them to the regulated state.
And employer pressure in "request" states
can easily make workers feel that they have
no choice but take the test. Finally, some
companies simply ignore that law and pay
the fine if they get caught. Some critics esti-
mate that as many as 59,000 workers per
year are denied employment either because
they refuse to take the test or because of in-
accuracies.
Because most state regulations are tooth-
less, polygraph foes are pushing for Federal
legislation prohibiting such tests. The Poly-
graph Protection Act of 1985, Which would
effectively ban the instrument in the pri-
vate sector, is scheduled for a floor vote in
the House before Christmas. Co-sponsored
by 164 representatives, the bill has received
strong support from the A.F.L.-C.I.O.
Unlike earlier polygraph bills, which got
bogged down in arguments over the consti-
tutional right to privacy, H.R. 1524 is
couched solely in terms of employment op-
portunity. According to labor lobbyist Jay
Harvey, the bill will pass because "the
American people don't like the test" and
"there aren't too many lin Congress) who
want to say that they advocate polygraphs."
The bill's sponsor, Pat Williams, is also con-
fident of passage. Antipolygraph sentiment
runs the ideological gamut: Jack Kemp sup-
ports H.R. 1524, and Orrin Hatch and
Edward Kennedy jointly introduced the
Senate version, S. 1815.
The polygraph industry's answer to the
proposed ban is a Federal licensing law
which would set standards for examiners.
That the induStry favors that approach is
not surprising, Since use of the machine is
more widespread in the twenty-six states
that have licensing laws than in states
having no pOlygraph statutes. The fact that
Shoney's is in Georgia, a licensing state,
should make legislators wary of the poly-
graph lobby's arguments. If every examiner
had the integrity of a Boy Scout, the prob-
lems inherent in the technology of the poly-
graph would not go away.
A number of big companies, including J.C.
Penney, Sears, Roebuck & Company, I.B.M.
and General Electric, don't use the poly-
graph. At companies that do, workers have
some defenses against it, even without Fed-
eral legislation. Some unions protect their
members, either by winning contract provi-
sions forbidding the test or by intervening
to stop an employer from administering the
examination. And workers ill treated by
polygraph testing have filed a variety of
civil suits, invoking state polygraph laws,
Federal and state fair-credit reporting laws
and such legal principles as malpractice, dis-
crimination and defamation. A number Of
plaintiffs have received awards in the six
figures. In 1982 an assistant manager in a
Zayre department store in Florida received
$250,000 as compensation for being fired
under what the court described as "circum-
stances implying that he had been guilty of
a felony." He had failed a lie detector test
two years earlier and was dismissed for al-
legedly stealing $500 from the store. But
after he left, the thefts continued, and even-
tually the culprit?who had passed the
test?was discovered, The man sued Zayre
for defamation, and the company that ad-
ministered the teat for negligence.
Unfortunately, invasion of workers' priva-
cy and unfair denial of employment would
not end with the banning of the polygraph.
Bosses today have a battery of tests at their
disposal that evaluate urine, handwriting or
personality. Some who have been forced to
abandon the polygraph have turned to writ-
ten "honesty testa." If polygraphs are out-
lawed, workers will no doubt be faced with
the question. Have you stopped ripping off
the company?
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I have long
supported legitilation such as H.R. 1212, the
Employee Polygriph Protection Act, which will
grant much needed protections for American
workers. This measure is needed to ensure
that employees are not unfairly denied em-
ployment and careers wrongfully ruined based
on the results of the highly questionable poly-
graph test.
The simple fact is, there is no scientific evi-
dence that polygraph machines or other so-
called he detector tests accurately and reliably
detect dishonesty. Which is precisely why re-
sults of such tests are not admissible in Fed-
eral courts. Because the polygraph test basi-
cally relies on simple mechanical readings of
variations in an individual's rate of breathing,
skin perspiration, and blood pressure during
questioning, it is valid only is a test of stress.
How can stress related to deception be sepa-
rated from the fear, anger, frustration or humil-
iation resulting from being forced to take the
test?
The use of lie detector machines in the
American workplace has dramatically escalat-
ed in recent years. Despite the questions
about the accuracy of lie detector tests, ap-
proximately 2 million are given each year,
most by private companies. The tests are an
invasion of a worker's privacy and require an
individual to prove his or her innocence even
without evidence of 'suspicion of guilt. Our
workers should not be denied job opportuni-
ties or discriminated against because they
may refuse to take such an unreliable and in-
accurate test or because of false lest results.
Because State law* have proved ineffective
in protecting America's waiters from the abu-
sive and degrading tests, legislation on the
Federal level, such as H.R. 1212, is desper-
ately needed. As Members of Congress, it is
our responsibility to protect the citizens of this
country from unwarranted and unfair treat-
ment. I strongly urge my colleagues to support
this legislation and to oppose amendments
designed to weaken the bill or protect specific
industries.
Mr. BONKER. Mr. Chairman as an original
cosponsor of KR. 1212, I want to urge my
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
colleagues to support this legislation which
will protect workers from being denied em-
ployment either because of information ob-
tained through or refusal to take a lie detector
test
According to the Office of Technology As-
sessment, over 2 million polygraph tests are
administered every year, 90 percent of them
by private employers. Yet, over the years,
studies have consistently shown that poly-
graph tests are unreliable. In most cases, lie
detector tests are inadmissable as court evi-
dence because of their questionable validity.
These same studies have also shown that
lie detector tests can be beaten because they
are only designed to measure physiological
responses with no determination as to cause.
Self-inflicted pain, extreme nervousness, and
apprehension all can influence test results. It
is up to the examiner to interpret the results
and often these individuals are poorly trained.
Beyond the technical questions of validity, I
believe the improper use of lie detectors does
a disservice to our constitutional premise of
innocence until proven guilty. Businesses who
rely on lie detector tests to screen job appli-
cants, assume untrustworthiness unless a lie
detector test can be passed. Unfortunately, It
has been shown that it is the most honest in-
dividuals who suffer the highest incidents of
failure because of their adverse reactions to
having their honesty questioned during these
tests. This injustice is magnified in many
cases, when workers find themselves forced
to respond to questions into areas of their
personal life with little regard for their right to
privacy or relevancy to their work ability.
Many businesses, however, strongly believe
that lie detector tests are an essential tool in
preventing employee crime. Evidence exists,
however, which shows that businesses that
conduct thorough background checks and
foster a trusting wort atmosphere tend to
have lower incidence of employee crime than
those who rely on lie detectors to police their
workforce.
Last, I am aware that many States have al-
ready passed legislation to protect workers
from lie detector tests as conditions for em-
ployment. These laws have been circumvent-
ed by many businesses who either coerce ap-
plicants into taking tests "voluntarily" or ar-
range for interviews in neighboring States
where prohibitory laws do not apply.
All this evidence pOints to the need for uni-
form, Federal legislation to ensure protection
of workers' constitutional rights. I urge my col-
leagues to consider the overwhelming evi-
dence against polygraph tests and support
this legislation today.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the Employee Polygraph Protec-
tion Act, H.R. 1212.
I believe that employers should be allowed
the opportunity to continue to use the poly-
graph tests responsibly and for legitimate pur-
poses. The polygraph helps protect the finan-
cial health of American businesses, and the
health and safety of the customers as well as
the employees.
The House of Respresentatives has repeat-
edly voted to permit the use of polygraph in
circumstances where the public interest justi-
fies its use. We have voted to allow the FBI,
the CIA, and other national defense agencies
to continue to use lie detectors. If, as support-
ers of H.R. 1212 suggest, these tests are so
Ineffective and unreliable, why are we using
them to help protect national security?
Uke the Federal Government, private busi-
nesses need the polygraph to guard their sen-
sitive information and to protect the health
and the security of their work forces. Busi-
nesses should be penatted legitimate use of
fie detector tests as long as the rights of em-
ployees are protected.
I believe that this matter is one which
should be regulated by State law. My home
State of Texas has one of the toughest poly-
graph laws in the country which I introduced
when I was in the State senate.
I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R.
1212. Voting for this legislation is just one
more vote to abolish the right of the State to
govern its citizens without interference from
the Federal Government
Mr. WEISS. Mr. Chairman, I rifle in stIPP0ft
of H.R. 1212, the Polygraph Protection Act, as
it was reported from the House Education and
Labor Committee. This bill is absolutely essen-
tial in order to restore basic fairness to the
American workplace.
Let us state the issue clearly. There is no
such thing as a lie detector in the workplace.
There exist certain mechanical and electrical
devices which are intended to detect lies by
employees or potential employees. But there
exists not one shred of evidence that that is
what they do.
Quite to the contrary, there is a preponder-
ance of evidence demonstrating that the tests,
themselves, often lie. And it is not white lies
that these devices tell, but lies that have seri-
ous and lasting consequences for the lives of
millions of American workers.
The American Medical Association says:
Studies indicate that polygraph testa
result in enough false-positive and false-neg-
ative findings of truthfulness that their
value is little better than the probabilities
of chance, or flipping a coin.
Americana enjoy games of chance as a
form of recreation. But they should not and
will not tolerate employers who play games
with the future of 2 million Americans who are
subjected to lie detector tests each year. The
continued use of devices masquerading as lie
detectors is a serious invasion of privacy and
an affront to basic human dignity.
H.R. 1212 would eliminate the use of these
devices in the workplace. It would make it ille-
gal for employers to require or request that
employees or job applicants take lie detector
tests. It would ensure that employees are noti-
fied of this prohibition, and it would provide
specific recourse in the case of violations.
H.R. 1212 is an urgently needed measure that
ought to be approved intact and without any
weakening amendments.
However, the record of the House of Repre-
sentatives in considering this type of legisla-
tion is far from pristine. Last year, during con-
sideration of a similar measure, the House
voted to exempt industry after industry from
the proposed prohibitions on polygraph use. In
the end, the bill was so full of loopholes that it
really amounted to an endorsement of the use
of polygraphs. Though I strongly approved of
the original measure, I was forced to vote
against the flnal version that resulted from re-
peated amendments on the House floor.
I fervently hope that the House will not
make the same error this year. There is no ra-
tionale for exempting specific industries from
prohibitions on polygraph use. The fact is that
H 9545
polygraphs are just as harmful and just as in-
accurate in all workplace settings.
I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in
defeating amendments to exempt different in-
dustries from the bill's prohibitions. For a bill
riddled with exceptions will be worse than no
bill at all. It will only sanction a practice that is
fundamentally at odds with individual rights.
I, for one, will not hesitate to vote against
the final bill if it sanctions polygraph use in the
guise of prohibiting it.
Mr. BRENNAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a
cosponsor and strong supporter of H.R. 1212,
the Employee Polygraph Protection Act This
needed legislation seeks to limit the growth of
lie detector testing in the workplace?which
has tripled in the past 10 years.,
It is estimated that more then 2 million poly-
graph tests are given each year. In fact, 98
percent of those tests were not given by the
FBI or the CIA, but were given by private busi-
ness. Some three-quarters of these tests were
given for preemployment screening.
Our criminal justice system presumes that
an individual is innocent until proven guilty.
Unfortunately, use of the polygraph stands
that important principal on its head as it re-
quires someone to prove their innocence. As
a former criminal prosecutor I am fully aware
of the unreliability in these gadgets. Courts
refuse to accept polygraph results and it is
sadly ironic that criminals are protected from
polygraphs, while American workers are not.
This legislation attempts to address that un-
fairness.
Twenty-two States and the District of Co-
lumbia have approved legislation prohibiting
polygraph for use in the private work force.
Another 19 States have attempted to regulate
their use. However, the separate nature of
these laws have not effectively protected
workers from being subjected to these unreli-
able tests. Many localities are circumventing
the law by requiring prospective employees to
take the test in a neighboring State which
allows polygraph testing.
KR. 1212 is a prudent and moderate ap-
proach to the problem of protecting our citi-
zens from abuse of lie detectors by manage-
ment American workers deserve the same
protection afforded to those accused of
crime?the ability to retain the presumption of
Innocence until proven guilty which is funda-
mental to our way of justice.
I urge my colleagues to join me in strong
support of H.R. 1212.
Mrs. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in sup-
port of H.R. 1517, the Aircraft Collision Avoid-
ance Act of 1987.
As many of -my colleagues have remarked,
this bill is long overdue. The Federal Aviation
Administration has dragged its feet in imple-
menting collision avoidance systems which
are already available. The FM has failed to
foster the development of the next generation
of collision avoidance systems.
As chairwoman of the Government Activi-
ties and Transportation Subcommittee,
charged with oversight responeibilities of the
FM, I am aware of the foot-dragging potential
of that agency. In the case before the Con-
gress today, FAA has delayed for years man-
dating the installation of so- called one-dimen-
sional collision avoidance systems. The agen-
cy's decision appears to have been to delay
this first generation system until the more so-
phisticated system is perfected. Unfortunately,
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
ii 9546
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE November 4, 1987
the two-dimensional systems have not come
as quick!), as FAA had hoped. In the mean-
time, the agency has done nothing. Anne
passengers are not receiving aft the protection
that present-day technotogy offers.
I suggest that FAA consider itself on notice.
The Congress is going to continue to pay very
dose attention to FM actiellies. Rukenaking,
researdr, enforcement, at these responsibil-
ities which FAA may have not property met,
will be ei*$ tie congressional scrutiny. if
need be, legislation will be offered. As the
chairwoman of the oversight subcommittee, I
intend to continue my subcommittee's moni-
toring via hearings and remora
I wish to commend the authors of this fill,
live Pubic Woes and Tniasportation Commit-
tee and the Committee on Science and Tech-
nology. I wholeheartedly support this measure.
(Mr. MARTINEZ addressed the
Connnfttee. His remarks appear
hereafter In the Extensions of Re-
marks.)
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman. I
just want to point out In dosing, let us
not be hypocrites here today. Let us
not impose upon the private sector
what we are unwilling to do for our-
selves.
I remind my colleagues, every one of
them who has spoken in support of
this legislation today needa to be re-
minded that on Jane 16 of this year by
a vote of 414 to nothing we approved
the Mica amendment as ft deals with
foreign policy in the implementation
and condole& of our foreign policY.
On May 11 at this year, by a vote of
341 to 44, we established the use of a
petasanent polygraph examination for
national! security purposes.
The CHAIRMAN. AB dine has ex-
pired.
Ausawat to the rule, the committee
amendment in the nature of a substi-
tute, nmr whited in the reported bill
shall be considered as an original bill
for the purpose at 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:
he it seecied Nie Senate gad Some ol
Itegoresentothset ol Use United Mein of
America in Congress assembled,
SECTION I. mon Trli.s.
This Act may be cited as the "Employee
Polygraph Protection Act".
Mr. blEA.T.... Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman. I would like to try
again. Earlier I raised two questions
concerning opposition to this hill. One
Is the question, the very basic question
concerning our system of justice,
wherein we assume our people to be
innocent until proven guilty. It is abso-
lutely clear that the widespread use of
polygraph tests assumes quite the op-
posite. It essentially says that we
assume people in a. variety of dram-
stances are guilty and we think its ap-
propriate, as a condition of employ-
ment in some cases, or under other
conditions that they should have to
prove their innocence.
Would one of the opponents of this
bM please help me in understanding
how you can possibly justify the idea
that we should turn our system of jus-
tice on it head by our assuming guilt
and requiring people to prove their in-
nocence.
Mr- YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEAL. lam happy to yield to
the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank the gentleman ler yield-
ing.
I would like to suggest to the gentle-
man that in most mess the use of the
polygraph is just part of the tool that
industry uses, or in the meet the De-
fense Departanent. it is just a part of
the process they nese when determin-
ing whether or not acme one should be
given access to our most sensitive na-
tional security- secrets, certain court
mar Incur country in the last couple
of years almost mandate polygraphs
for employers.
Let me read just a very brief state-
ment in response to the gentleman's
question.
Mr. NEAL. Is the gentleman re-
sponding to this question,
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, I am
responding to the gentleman's ques-
tion.
Mr. NEAL. All right, I would like to
hear it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. This is from
testimony from the Plaids Secretary
of State to the other body last year.
He said:
Recent litigation has also established the
dr/nation of boainesma toeendect adequate
backereand ealustlene to enure the pro.
Union of the patella Rulings from several
eases nationwide support this statement.
One recent pending salt Involves a carpet
dawning companY whew alliftree raped
and murdered the child of a dies*. The pro-
prietor has been sued for failure to perform
adequate employment screening. specifically
for not using an available resource?the
Polygraph-
D 1230
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, reclaim-
ing my time, the gentleman is not re-
sponding to zny question.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Try again.
Mr. NEAL, Mr. Chairman, the ques-
tion is this, I say to the gentleman
from Florida, that the proponents of
the widespread use of polygraph test-
hag, putting aside the accuracy of
these gadgets which I hope we get to
In a minute. but putting that aside, is
It not true that when one says to a
prospective employee, or to others
under a wide variety of circumstances
that as a condition of one thing or an-
other one has to take this test, that we
are assuraing their guilt and requiring
that they prove their Innocence? That
Is the question.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, if the gentleman will continue to
yield, I do not see it that way at &IL If
that were the case, then the Federal
Government would obviously not be as
heavily involved in the use of poly-
graph as we presently are.
Mr. NEAL. That Is not an answer, let
me say to the gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The answer
Is no, that Is not the case.
I disagree totally with the gentle-
man's assumption.
Mr. NEAL. Let me reclaim my time
and comment on this question of the
Federal Government's use of the poly-
graph.
The fact is that when we entrust
people with important security infor-
mation or other important responsibil-
ities in our Government on the basis
of their having passed s, polygraph
test, we are running an enormous risk.
To those who object to this legislation
because it continues to allow agencies
of the Federal Government to use
these testa, I say I think they are cor-
rect. We are running a gram risk to
our nationsl security by depending on
these gadgets which are clearly very
highly inaccurate. We have had impor-
tant testinsony from a number of gen-
tleman on the floor, including the die-
Unquished gentleman from Utah LMr.
Masted, a professor of statistics,
which indicates that the error rate of
these gadgets is incredibly high.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentlemen yield?
Mr. NEAL. I yield to the gentleman
from Flosida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to'respend to that
very point and I my to my colleague,
pay dose attention to what 1 an going
to say. The Defense Department in
using the polygraph when screening
people who halve applied for top secret
and special access type clearance. Imes
the polygraph only as s part of their
ma eening process. It in not the total
determining factor.
The gentleman suggested that to
allow someone that kind of access Just
on the basis of a polygraph ins grave
risk. But let nse say to the gentleman
that that is not how it is done. Poly-
graph examination is just part of a
lengthy process used to clear one for
access to classified materiel.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no
amendments to section 1, the Clerk
will diedgmde section 2.
The text of section 2k as follows:
SEC. r PROMBITTONs ON Lot nerecroe USE.
It shall be unlawful for any employer en-
gaged in commerce or in the production of
goods for eenimerce?
(1) directly OT indirectly, to require, re-
quest, suggest, or cause any employee or
prospective employee to take or entisnit to
any lie detector test;
(2) to me. accept, refer to, or inquire COD-
cenAng the results of any lie detector test of
any employee or prospective employee;
(3) to discharge, dismiss, discipline in any
manner, or deny employment or promotion
to, or threaten to take any such action
A) any any employee or prospective employee
who refuses, declines, or fails to take or
submit to any lie detector test; or
(11) any employes or prospective employee
on the basis of the results of any lie detec-
tor test; or
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 9547
(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.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amend-
ments to section 2?
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word.
(Mr. BARTLETT asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I
rise for the purpose of clarification.
Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
NEAL) is so eloquent on this case, and I
want to pursue a bit of what he has
mentioned a moment ago because I
think the House needs to understand
It. I would pose a question to the gen-
tleman in a moment and give him
ample opportunity to respond.
The House should be willing to take
one of two positions, but not both si-
multaneously. We should either con-
tend, as the bill does, that the poly-
graph should not be used on any occa-
sion or we should permit it to be used
but not as the sole determinant.
The gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. NEAL), was eloquent a moment
ago in essentially saying it should not
be used as the sole determinant.
Frankly, I agree with that.
I do want to point out to the gentle-
man that one of the key features of
the Darden-Young substitute is that
for private employment as well as
public employment, that the poly-
graph shall not be able to be used for
discharging, disciplining, or denying
employment or promotion to any em-
ployee as the sole determinant, or
based solely on the analysis and opin-
ions of the polygraph examiner.
My question is, is the gentleman pro-
posing that we prohibit the use of
polygraph even as the sole determi-
nant, or does he believe that it should
be as is currently done in national se-
curity, permitted to be used as one de-
terminant, but not the sole determi-
nant?
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I
yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, the over-
whelming evidence offered before our
Subcommittee on Legislation and Na-
tional Security on this question indi-
cates that the polygraph tests are not
lie detector tests. They are not reli-
able. They are not accurate. They
cannot be depended upon.
So it is ridiculous to use these tests
as a determinant of accuracy, when
they are inherently unreliable, as the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. BROOKS],
the chairman of our full committee,
pointed out.
They can be useful. We can scare
people with them. As long as people
believe there is a level of accuracy
here, we can scare people into admit-
ting guilt, but the fact of the matter is
that these things are inherently unre-
liable. It is no more accurate than the
flip of a coin, as one witness said.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I do
not want to put words in the gentle-
man's mouth. but I do want the House
to understand. The gentleman then is
advocating that we prohibit the use of
the polygraph in all cases, even as one
determinant, rather than prohibiting
its use as a sole determinant?
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield, that would be my
own preference. That is absolutely cor-
rect. I think it is a very dangerous
Idea, especially dangerous to be using
these gadgets in the area of national
security.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, my
question is, even as one determinant?
That is My question.
Mr. NEAL. If I could respond to the
gentleman, I would say that if we are
willing, as the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. BRooKs] pointed out in his testi-
mony, to start again using the rack or
the dunking stool, or some other item
of witchcraft, certainly those could be
useful in scaring people into admitting
guilt and so on.
If the gentleman would like to
broaden the arsenal of our tools that
we are going to use in this area, I
guess we could include polygraph with
those kinds of gadgets, but they are
about the same level of reliability.
Mr. BARTLETT. Reclaiming my
time, the gentleman does not believe
in what is explicitly provided for in
the bill, that is the use of polygraph in
national defense and national security
by the Government. Does the gentle-
man oppose that section of the bill,
and think it should be deleted?
Mr. NEAL. Yes, I believe that is a
dangerous procedure. I believe we will
endanger our national security by that
use.
Mr. BARTLETT. The gentleman be-
lieves it should be used in no case
whatsoever. Would the gentleman
then see this bill as the first step
toward prohibiting the use of poly-
graph in national security cases?
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, I would
hope so, because I think we run a
grave risk of endangering our national
security by relying on these gadgets
which are inherently inaccurate.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTLETT. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, when the Walker spy case first
broke, I had the opportunity to in-
quire of the Chief of Naval Intelli-
gence, what he needed to effectively
do something to prevent Walker spy
cases from happening, he responded
by saying, "we need authority to poly-
graph those who seek access to classi-
fied information."
This is the Chief of Naval Intelli-
gence. The Secretary of the Navy
made basically the same statement as
did many others. These are the people
that have been given the responsibility
for our national security. They tell us
they have authority to polygraph.
If you don't trust them, than fire
them. But if you do trust them, at
least give them the tools they need to
meet their responsibility.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bsamkrrl
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. BART-
LErT was allowed to proceed for 1 addi-
tional minute.)
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman,
what I want to say very clearly so that
everyone who is watching this debate
understands, is that the debate is be-
tween the proponents of H.R. 1212
who have written a bill that would
prohibit the use of polygraph in all
cases except for national security even
though national security would likely
be next, but just prohibit the use of
the polygraph as any kind of determi-
nant comparable to prohibiting the
use of reference checks because they
are not perfect, or personal interviews,
or written tests. That is one side of the
debate.
The other side of the debate, would
be the Darden-Young substitute that
would permit the use of the polygraph
under licensing but only if used as one
determinant, but prohibit the use of
the polygraph as the sole determinant.
Darden-Young would correct what-
ever abuses the sponsors would pur-
port to have in the marketplace by
prohibiting the use of the polygraph
as the sole determinant.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentle-
man from North Carolina (Mr. Na].
0 1240
Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman
for yielding. I would like to propose a
question to the distinguished gentle-
man from Florida.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. BARTLETT]
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. BART-
LETT was allowed to proceed for 1 addi-
tional minute.)
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I
continue to yield to the gentleman
from North Carolina.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, when the
gentleman from Florida pointed out
the statement regarding this Govern-
ment official who thought that the
polygraph was the most valuable tool
at his disposal, or whatever that exact
quote was, was it his position that the
polygraph test was an accurate one, or
was it his position that it had utility
because some people believe that they
were accurate and he might be able to
scare someone into a confession or
something?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9548
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? HOUSE November 4, 1987
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTLE'IT'. / yield to the gen-
tleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank the gentleman for that
question. I would say again that none
of us are contending, even in the held
of national delemse? and especially in
the field of national defame, none of
us ace contending that the polygraph
Is the ultimate tool. But it is a tremen-
dous tool in the overall process of
doing background research to deter-
mine whether se not. access to the
most sensitive national defense secrets
o oor Nation with be grained. No, Is. is
not a single tool. We have made that
point time after time alter time. It. is
one of the tools, and it is a most effec-
tive tool in eOniunetion with the other
parts of the procedures that are used.
To get security clearances an occa-
sion takes a year or longer when get-
ting a person cleared for a particular
type of classincation. and the poly-
graph does not take anywhere near a
year to perform. as the gentleman
knows.
The CHAIRbfAIV. The time of the
gentleman front Texas (Mr. Haterxerrl
has again expired.
(On request or Mr. lifsernme and by
unanimous consent. Mr. Barrsert was
allowed to proceed far I additional
minute.)
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, will
The gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTLETT. I am happy to
yield to the gentleman from Califor-
nia.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. (hairman, the
fact that the genthemnan saw it takes a
year ea tr. year imd a hail to get clear-
ance en these high secants matters in-
dicates that the Federal Governatesit
at least in the use od these machines is
not relying on taken.
The problem Mee in that a private
employer often does rely totally on
that and does a very cursory investiga-
tion once he determines that the evi-
dence presented by thki polygraph test
Is valid, and he does assume that, it is
valid. They have testified over and
over again in the hearings that they
believe in the reliability of this poly-
graph machine.
The problem that nobody here has
talked about, is that there is another
flaw in it, and that is the human. flaw,
because these machines only read your
blood pressure, your temperature and
miscellaneous things. Ince that, and
then that polygrapher, depending on
his training and his biases, is the de-
terminant of whether the gentleman
Is lying or not, and that in many cases
has been proven, as is true in the case
of severe/ court cases which have
taken place, not to be valid.
Mr. BARTLETT. Reclaiming my
time. I understand the gentleman's
point. Of course, what the bill does is
permit the use of the polygraph with-
out restriction In national securfty
cases. Bo If it is not accurate ft does
not provide for the sole determinant
standard. The Darden-Yotmg bill pro-
vides for the sole determinant stand-
ard, prohibits a sole determinant use
of the polygraph. The Darden-Young
bill does Wright.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARI%TT I yield to the gen-
tleman front Mild*.
Mr. YOUNG of Fr/arida. / thank the
gentleman for yielding. He has very
eloquently made the point I was going
to make. There is going to be the use
of the polygraph whether this bill
passes or not.
What we are trying to do is make
wire that the person conducting the
examination ts professitaral. has been
licensed and knows what he is doing,
and that the person being examined
has legal protection of his personal
and chit rights.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the list word. / am
going to use 30 seconds of my 5 min-
utes and plead with my colleagues not
to ask me to yield to them.
Mr. Chairman, the fast time the bill
was on the floor of the House it took
us 6 hours to complete It. We are now
debating specific points that we will
debate again when these amendments
come up and when the substitute Is of-
fered. I just appeal to my. colleagues to
wait unfit we get to the specific section
of the bin where the amendments can
be offered before we start a debate
that we are going to go over again
when we do reach that specific section,
which in most instances, for most of
the amendments, will be section 6.
We hope to be able to adjourn
around dinnertime, but If I recollect
how this debate proceeded a year ago,
ft is moving considerably more sionly
now than It did then, and then it took
? hours. So we want full debate and
that Is the reasen I requested a tufty
open rule. But I encourage my col-
leagues to allow this process to move
ahead.
/ yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any
amendments to section 2?
If not, the Clerk will designate sec-
tion &
The text of section 3 is as follows:
arcs. NOTICE or raorscritut
The Secretor* of Labor shall prepare,
have printed, and distribute a notice that
employers are penhibiled by this Act from
using a Se detector test on any employee or
prospective employee. Each employer shall
peat and keep posted. Is eampicuess Paces
upon its premien where notices to employ-
ees and prospective employees are custoni-
arllY Posted, the notice distributed by the
Secretary ander this section.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any
amendments to section 3?
If not. the Clerk will designate aec-
tion 4.
The text of section 4 Is as follows:
sec. a ACTRORITY or TAB SECRETARY OF LABOR.
(a) In ORPRRAL?The Secretary of Labor
shall?
CI) issue such rulea and regulations as may
be necessary or appropriate for carrying out
this Act
(27 cooperate with regional. State, local.
and other agencies, and cooperate with and
furnish technical assistance to employers,
labor organizations, and employment agen-
efts to aid tit effectuating the PorPores of
this Act; and
(3) make investigations and inspections
and require the keeping of ranted& nese&
sary or appropriate for the administration
of this An-
kh) Sumas Annuatrx.--For the purpose
of any hearing or investigation under this
Act. the Secretary shall have the authority
contained in sections Sand ft of the Feder-
al Trade Commission Act (IS tf.S.C. 49, 50t
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any
amendments to section 4?
If not, the Clerk will designate sec-
tion 5.
The text of section 6 is as follows:
SEC. SPREINCenearriteconotes
tai Civir. Pairazams-41) Subject to para-
graph (2)?
(A) any employer wile violates section I
may be smarmed a civil money penalty not to
exceed $100 for each day of the violation;
and
(S) any employer who vfolates any other
Provision of this Act may be assessed a civil
penalty not to exceed g/9,000.
(2) In determining the amount of any pen-
alty wider pasapaph Cll, the secretary
shaIl take into amount the previous record
of the person in henna of compliance with
this Act and the gravity of the violation.
(3) RAY civil penalty assented under this
subsection shall be collected in the same
manner as is required by subsections (b)
through (e) of section 553 of the Migrant
and Sear/one; Aerfeelterat Worker 1Pretec-
lion Act (.50 DAC LIM with respect to
dal penalties unused under minection tat
of such section.
(b) INJUNCTEAR ACORNS ST THS SUR.
,raits,?The Secretary may Wag 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 restrefning orders and
injunctions to require compliance with this
An.
It) PRIVATE Cern. Parmars.?t1) An em-
ployer who violator the provisions at this
An shall be Pale to the employee or pro-
spective employee attested, by such viola-
tion. An. employer who violates the provi-
sions of this Act shall be Linde for such
legal or equitable relief as nay be appropri-
ate, including (without linrkation) employ-
ment, reinstalrensedg, promotion, the pay-
ment of imps law and an anlitionsl
amount as eansequennal damages.
(2) An action to recover the 'debility pre-
scribed in paragraph (1) may be maintained
against the employer in any Federal or
State court of competent Prisdiction by any
one or more employees or prospective em-
ployees (or any person actin, on behalf of
such employee or employees) les or in
behalf of lobaself ar themselves and other
employees or prospective employees sindiar-
ly situated. Nommen civil on may be men-
nuanced more than 3 years after the date of
the alleged. violation.
(3) The court shall award to a prevailing
plaintiff in any action under this subsection
the reasonable note of such sedan, includ-
ing attorneys' fees.
Mr. CfUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to call to the
attention of my colleagues section 5 of
this bilk I do not have an amendment
at the present time and I do not
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
intend to offer one because I do not
think we ought to pursue along an ac-
rimonious debate over the penalty sec-
tion of this bill. I think the substance
of the bill is far more important.
But I want people to understand
what section 5 does here. It not only
imposes rather significant financial
penalties of up to $10,000 for any em-
ployer who violates the use of the test
when they are banned, but it also goes
so far as saying that once this legisla-
tion is passed that the Secretary of
Labor shall prepare, have printed and
distribute to every employer all over
this country a notice that says lie de-
tector tests cannot be required.
That is good, I have no problem with
the Secretary of Labor doing that.
What I have a problem with, and
what people ought to be aware of in
this legislation is the fact that subsec-
tion (a) of section 5 provides for a pen-
alty not to exceed $100 per day when-
ever that sign is not posted, from here
to eternity.
I do not know how many of my col-
leagues have ever worked in the pri-
vate sector. I am going to assume the
vast majority of us have. I think we
have all gone past those time clock
areas where you punch the time clock
and you see some notices and you do
not see some notices. I have to tell my
colleagues that as a youngster. in high
school and in college, I had jobs as a
Janitor. I got to do the cleaning and all
of that, and as we would go through
and clean, and in particular when we
would prepare for special occasions at
the industry I was at, sometimes no-
tices that were all dilapidated, that
were outdated, that were faded, discol-
ored, we would throw all of that away,
clear the blackboard off so that we
could start a new set of notices on the
bulletin board.
I want my colleagues to know that
the legislation in front of us now is
going to require a $100 penalty, up to
$100 penalty a day for anyone who in-
nocently happens to have had sonic
employee, who is a young high school
janitor who accidentally, unintention-
ally, not knowingly, happened to pull
that notice down.
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTLETT. I am happy to
yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding. I
would like to use this opportunity, Mr.
Chairman, to point out one distinction
here that I do not think has been
made very clear to the Members of
this body. The distinguished gentle-
man from North Carolina [Mr. NEAL],
kept on talking about how this bill
would somehow require a person to
give testimony against himself and ob-
viously violate the fifth amendment to
the Constitution of the United States,
which of course provides that no
person shall be compelled to testify
against himself.
It is important to note, Mr. Chair-
man, that most of the complaints we
have heard about the polygraph relate
to the specific conduct of law enforce-
ment agencies, whether or not a par-
ticular sheriff or a police agency or a
bureau of investigation has in fact
properly conducted a polygraph exam-
ination, or in many instances has the
scope of the examination gone too far,
or has the person conducting it for the
police actually been qualified.
I would like to point out to the
Members of the body, Mr. Chairman,
that the activities of police agencies,
whether it be State, Federal, or local
are absolutely exempt under this law.
So if we are worried about innocent
people somehow being forced into con-
fessing or in some way admitting guilt
or being found guilty by the use of a
polygraph, this bill does not do a bit of
good, because this bill excludes all ac-
tivities of any police force or any other
law enforcement agency.
So I would like for the body to keep
that in mind, Mr. Chairman, that we
are not really getting to the problem if
we are interested in police abuses and
a person having to violate the fifth
amendment. What we are doing here
is simply punishing the private sector
by saying you cannot do in the private
sector what you can do in the public
sector.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. GUNDERSON. I am happy to
yield to the gentleman from Montana.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman. I
want to note that the gentleman from
Wisconsin raises a good point, and
that is whether or not the penalties
that are assessed here, the civil penal-
ties, are too high, given the violations.
I would remind the House that they
are within keeping with other penal-
ties in similar types of legislation.
I would also tell the House that this
$10,000 fine is a maximum and that
the Act goes on to say that the Secre-
tary shall take into account the gravi-
ty of the violation.
Finally I would remind or ask the
House to recall that there was a recent
award against an employer, a drug
company in the United States, a
recent award against that company of
$4 million for violating the rights of
an employee to whom they gave a
polygraph examination.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Our:-
DEMON] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Gm,-
DERSON was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
want to point out that the gentleman
from Montana and I really have no
dispute on the penalty section for the
violations of the use or the abuse of
the polygraph. My objection is the
fact that we are going to send this
signal in this legislation that we will
provide penalties of up to $100 per day
if there is not this little paper notice
hanging up in every employer's build-
ing around this country. That is exces-
sive, that is extreme, that is asking for
H 9549
trouble, and I think that section ought
not be in this bill.
Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I was intrigued while
sitting in my office listening to the
debate to hear some of the comments
of the proponents of the bill that do
not seem to me to match up with what
is in the bill itself.
The point has been made by some
who oppose this bill that even as we
speak there are instances in which em-
ployees are using lie detedor testa in
order to take suspicion from them. Yet
if my colleagues read the language of
this bill, they would not be able to vol-
untarily do that. Why? Because it is
unlawful for any employer "to use,
accept, refer to, or inquire concerning
the results of any lie detector test of
any employee or prospective employ-
ee." So even If the employee requests
of his employer permission to take a
lie detector test so that that individual
might be able to have more evidence
that in fact, he or she, was not in-
volved in something that was not ap-
propriate, it would be a violation of
the law for the employer to accede to
the request of the employee to do
that.
I do not understand why we are so
worried about this test that we would
even prohibit an employee from volun-
tarily taking it, and then allowing or
asking or requesting or imploring their
employer to look at it.
The other thing I would mention is
In this caw we want to make sure we
really sock it to the employer. If you
look at the last three lines of section 5
you find this: "The court shall award
to a prevailing plaintiff in any action
under this subsection the reasonable
costs of such action, including attor-
neys' fees."
Note it does not say the court shall
award the "prevailing party". In other
words, a case, no matter how frivolous,
brought against an employer by the
employee that is determined to be friv-
olous will not allow that employer to
get back the costs incurred. That may
be a very expensive proposition when
we realize up in the previous subsec-
tion it says:
An action to recover the liability pre-
scribed in paragraph al may be maintained
against the employer in any Federal or
State court of competent Jurisdiction by any
one or more employees or perspective em-
ployees (or any person acting on behalf of
such employee or employees) for or in
behalf of himself or themselves and other
employees or perspective employees in a
similar 'situation.
In other words, it legitimizes class
action suits.
So we can have a situation in which
an employee brings a frivolous case on
behalf of other employees or other
members of a class before a court, go
through the whole case, all the way to
trial, and at that point in time when it
Is tossed out the employer is left with
the large expenditure of funds, includ-
ing attorney fees, but does not get the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9550
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE November 4, 1987
benefit of this section which says only
prevailing plaintiffs can be recom-
pensed.
0 1255
Now I do not understand in this
House how we continually want to
make sure that we sock it to the em-
ployer even when the employer is
proven to be without fault. Continual-
ly we have bills brought to us here
that say, "By God, we are going to
sock it to you and we are going to put
the fear of God in you, so that even
though we don't have a good case
against you, we are going to punish
you nonetheless."
That does not make a great deal of
sense to me. It is a manifestation of a
prevailing attitude in this House that
seems to say the deep pockets of the
employer are so deep we can keep dig-
ging and digging and digging.
Why we have this bias against em-
ployers in this bill. I do not know.
"You shall award to the prevailing
plaintiff, only" but not to the prevail-
ing defendant.
The other factor I would like to dis-
cuss here is the question of whether or
not these lie detector tests have any
validity whatsoever.
We seem to just easily jump over the
fact that we have required them in de-
fense, in the intelligence community
and now in the foreign policy commu-
nity.
As a member of the Committee on
Intelligence, I can tell you that the in-
telligence community absolutely be-
lieves in the validity of these tests, not
as the sole determinant but as part of
an entire review of prospective em-
ployees. In fact, in the last number of
years that this Congress has been
most critical of the intelligence com-
munity for security lapses, one of the
problems cited has been the failure to
administer such tests to individuals
subsequently found to have skipped
out with State secrets.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lux-
OREN] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. LUN-
GREN WAS allowed to proceed for 3 addi-
tional minutes.)
Mr. LUNGREN. So, in fact, as Mem-
bers have suggested in debate here,
there is a schizophrenic attitude evi-
dent on the floor today which says
that we can use, in fact we require to
be used, this tool as a pre-employment
practice or as an investigative tool
with the intelligence community of
the United States. This is because we
think that the national security inter-
ests of the United States are so impor-
tant. Yet the validity that is assumed
when we grant that authority and ob-
ligate those agencies to use it, is
thrown by the wayside when we dis-
cuss it here.
Now I have in my previous life as an
attorney had the opportunity to repre-
sent some security companies, that is,
those who provide security. And I will
tell you I am not satisfied in all cases
that the standards that presently
apply for those people who are al-
lowed to carry guns and have badges
on their shirts, rent-a-cops some
people call them, are as great as they
ought to be. But it seems to me non-
sensical for us to say that a security
firm that is going to put an amend-
ment, a loaded gun on the hip of its
employee to go out and supposedly
protect us, is not going to have the
ability to use this tool as part of an
overall approach to its employment
practices.
We allow these things to be done
with respect to our police depart-
ments. In fact, a Supreme Court case
found that a police officer accused of a
particular offense may be required to
take a lie detector test and his job
would be in the balance if he failed to
do so. This was allowed even though
the Court would not allow that it be
required in a criminal setting.
I also do not understand why we say
here that the polygraph is not to be
used because it is a fallible instrument.
Every single one of us in this Chamber
is fallible. In fact, last Thursday we
found out how fallible our rules are in
this House. Yet I do not see anybody
here saying that we ought to close
down completely, not do the Nation's
business because we have imperfect
laws or imperfect rules. In fact, some
Members on that side have instructed
us that those rules are going to remain
imperfect and we should just accept it
because that is the cost of doing busi-
ness.
In a somewhat similar fashion, the
polygraph is not infallible. We should
recognize this. It can be used, it has
been used. We have criticized the in-
telligence community when they have
not used it. It seems to me to be the
height of hyprocisy to require it in our
"ballpark" but not to allow it in the
private sector.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. LUNGREN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from North Carolina.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lon-
GREW has again expired.
(On request of Mr. NEAL and by
unanimous consent Mr. LUNGE= was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. LUNGREN. I continue to yield
to the gentleman from North Caroli-
na.
Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the
gentleman from Florida and the gen-
tleman from California and others are
vitally interested in our national secu-
rity. -What I do not understand is how
they would be willing to even begin to
trust such a fallible instrument. It is
not that these gadgets are accurate 95
percent of the time or 99 percent of
the time; the fact of the matter is that
they are no more accurate than the
flip of a coin.
Mr. LUNGREN. Reclaiming my
time, I would say to the gentleman I
have heard that cited. I will tell you
that is not the testimony you hear
from the intelligence community.
That is not the testimony you hear
from the people who have been part of
the CIA, the NSA and so forth, over
the last 25 years.
In fact, criticisms of those agencies
for security lapses have included criti-
cism that they did not use the lie de-
tector test when it should have been
used. And there has also been the
point that had it been used it is most
likely that the agencies would have
been able to stop certain people from
having the classes of information that
otherwise got into the hands of our
enemy.
Mr. NEAL Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield again briefly?
Mr. LUNGREN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Neal].
Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer
the gentleman to some scientists, not
hearsay evidence but scientific evi-
dence. Here is a statement by Dr. John
Berry, associate dean, Georgetown
University School of Medicine. He
calls his paper "The Nonexistence of
the Lie Detector Test." He says he
wants to "make two Important Points
today." This was the testimony before
our. Committee on Government Oper-
ations.
"Two important points about the
polygraph: First, no such machine as a
lie detector exists. There is no physio-
logical response unique to lying.
"I have to point out that the other
point he makes is that a lot of people
believe that there is such a thing as a
"lie detector" test so you can -scare
some people.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from California has again
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Lon-
MIEN was allowed to proceed for a addi-
tional minutes.)
Mr. LUNGREN. I will continue to
yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. NEAL].
Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
The author of the paper went on to
say that lying is only one of several
stimuli which may excite a person:
other stimuli which cause excitement
are fear of losing one's job, embarrass-
ment or anger at being examined, for
example. He, in answer to his own
question, "Does it work at all?" says
this: "It is a simple coin. It will be
right 50 percent of the time in a di-
chotomous situation that is a lie-
nonlie." The point he makes is that so
called "lie detection" test are no more
accurate than the flip of a coin.
So I say to my distinguished col-
leagues, the point is we are relying on
something that is inherently unreli-
able and to use this even as a part of
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
clearing someone for important na-
tional security considerations is dan-
gerous to our own security.
Mr. LUNGREN. I appreciate the
gentleman's remarks. I might say if
you would go back, say 10 years ago to
the time when Mr. Califano was Secre-
tary of HHS, I can cite you quotes
from Mr. Califano, when he said that
the CAT scanner Was not an appropri-
ate diagnostic instrument and that we
were wasting money on it. Yet I know
people walking the streets today who
are alive because they used the CAT
scanner as a diagnostic tool.
Mr. NEAL. The gentleman is very
cleverly changing the subject. The
subject is polygraphs.
Mr. LUNGREN. Now, wait a second.
I would be glad to listen to the gentle-
man on his time but this is on my
time.
The point is I can cite you medical
authorities who will tell you that
bypass surgery should not have been
done in many cases 12 years ago. In
fact, my father is one of those, a board
certified internist and cardiologist. He
changed his mind about their applica-
bility after he had one. Thank God he
has been able to live for over a decade
after having such an operation.
I accept the gentleman's opinion as
his own, that doctor's. I will say this,
those in the intelligence community of
the United States, not giving an opin-
ion off the top of their head but giving
an opinion based on their experience
over some approximately 40 years
have told us it is an essential tool to
protect the national security interests
of the United States. They use them
in the employment practice, the
preemployment practice techniques
and also investigations later on. I
would say that I would yield to their
ideas rather than to someone who is
giving us an opinion based on no prac-
tice.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from California has again
expired.
(On request of Mr. NEAL and by
unanimous consent, Mr. LUNGREN was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. LUNGREN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from North Carolina (Mr.
NEAL).
Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman
once again for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask my dis-
tinguished colleague to bring to the
floor of the House of Representatives
some evidence, some scientific evi-
dence, not hearsay, not my evidence,
not my opinion, not your opinion, but
bring us some evidence that these
gadgets are reliable. I certainly want
to keep an open mind on the subject. I
have riased this point throughout the
debate today and no one in opposition
to this bill has presented one scintilla
of evidence that these things are reli-
able.
Mr. LUNGREN. There is a differ-
ence between science and art but that
does not mean that art is witchcraft.
We talk about the art of medicine; we
do not talk about the science of medi-
cine in terms of diagnosing people.
We talk about the practice of medi-
cine; we do not talk about the perfec-
tion of medicine. Many of the tech-
niques, diagnostic as they are, that
doctors use today cannot be proven ab-
solutely scientifically but they are
proven in terms of practical effect. I
would suggest that the relationship
that the gentleman has presented be-
tween the scientific and witchcraft is a
non sequitur. In fact we are talking
about an art that has been proven.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any
amendments to section 5?
If not, the Clerk will designate sec-
tion 6.
The text of section 6 is as follows:
SEC. S. 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) NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY Ex-
Emrriorr.?(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
employee of any contractor of such depart-
ment; or
(B) any expert or consultant under con-
tact with the Department of Energy in con-
nection with the atomic energy defense ac-
tivities of such department or any employee
of any contractor of such department in
connection with such activities.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed
to prohibit the administration, in the per-
formance of any Intelligence or counterin-
telligence function, of any lie detector test
to?
(A)(i) any individual employed by. or SS-
signed or detailed to, the National Security
Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency.
(ii) any exert or consultant under contract
to the National Security Agency or the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency, (iii) any employee
of a contractor of the National Security
Agency or the Central intelligence Agency.
or (iv) any individual apply- ing for a posi-
tion in the National Security Agency or the
Central Intelligence Agency; or
(B) any individual assigned to a space
where sensitive cryptologic information is
produced, processed, or stored for the Na-
tional Security Agency or the Central Intel-
ligence Agency.
Cc) 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.
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 13, insert the fol-
lowing new subsection:
H 9551
(d) NURSING Roma EXEMPT/ON.?ThIS Act
shall not prohibit the use of a lie detector
test by an employer on any employee or
prospective employee of any miming home
facility. This subsection shall not preempt
or supercede any State or local law which
prohibits or restricts the use of lie detector
tests.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, this amendment comes at an ap-
propriate place in the bill. Section 6 is
entitled National Defense and Securi-
ty Exemptions. In 1985, when we had
the Armed Services authorization bill
before the House, the House of Repre-
sentatives approved by ? vote of 333 to
71 an amendment offered by this
Member to establish a polygraph pro-
gram for those in the Defense Depart-
ment seeking classified clearances.
That 2-year test program worked so
well that in 1987 we offered the
amendment to provide a permanent
program for the national Department
of Defense. That permanent program
was approved by this House 345 to
only 44 against.
And as was discussed earlier today,
the House this year voted 414 to zero
for an amendment to the State De-
partment authorization bill to require
the use of polygraphs in screening em-
bassy security personnel.
So obviously the House of Repre-
sentatives believes there is need for
the use of polygraph.
I made this point earlier and I want
to say it again briefly: If this bill be-
comes law the way it is presently writ-
ten or if it is to be amended several
times or no times, there is still going
to be the use of the polygraph because
the bill presented by the gentleman
from Montana allows the use of poly-
graph by the Federal Government,
State governments, county govern-
ments, and local governments and Po-
litical subdivisions thereof.
Just for example back home in Flori-
da where we used to have mosquito
problems, we used to have what we
called mosquito control boards. Now
under this bill you use the polygraph
when someone applies for a job on the
mosquito control board to drive a
truck between the hours of midnight
and 4 o'clock in the morning spraying
swampy areas and drainage ditches.
Under this bill you could use the poly-
graph in that case but you could not
use the polygraph to screen someone
who would deal with America's elderly
because under this bill, you cannot use
the polygraph to screen an employee
who is seeking employment to serve
America's elderly in nursing homes.
In fact, I thought when the bill
came out that it might do that, be-
cause last year in this debate, along
with a number of other exemptions
that the chairman accepted, he accept-
ed my amendment to exempt nursing
homes from this prohibition because
he felt?and I am sure most of us in
the Chamber felt?that if anyone
needs our protection it is those elderly
in nursing homes who cannot take
care of themselves, who are bedridden,
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9552
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE November 4, 1987
who have no family, in many cases, to
look after them.
Mr. Chairman, I digress just a
moment here: Here are three volumes
of hearings conducted by Select Com-
mittee on Aging of the House of Rep-
resentatives dealing with abuse of the
elderly and to a great extent in nurs-
ing homes,
0 1310
These reports also deal with the
rights of America's institutionalized
aged lodged in confinement, and elder
abuse. Throughout these hearings we
are told how elderly people in nursing
homes have been abused and over-
drugged to keep them under control so
they did not make a lot of demands.
We hear of soiled bed clothes not
changed because someone did not
want to do it, and of theft from elderly
persons in the nursing homes.
One of the problems in nursing
homes is that people who work there
do not get paid enough money, and
many of them do not stay on the job
very long. They are very transient;
they come and they go, and it is very
difficult to keep track of their previ-
ous employment records.
So nursing homes and nursing home
managements have turned to another
tool. Little by little they are using the
polygraph to screen prospective em-
ployees, those who are going to deal
with the elderly, those who in the wee
hours of the night have access to that
patient strapped down to that bed,
those who in the wee hours of the
night have access to those people's be-
longings.
Mr. Chairman, we owe those in nurs-
ing homes the protection of this Con-
gress and of this law, and I say again
there is going to be the polygraph in
America whether the Williams bill
passes or not. The Williams bill pro-
vides for the polygraph in certain
cases. But it is at least necessary that
we accept this amendment to create
an exemption for nursing homes so
that those people who are serving
America's elderly might be checked
out before they do serious harm to one
of our elderly mothers or grandmoth-
ers or fathers or grandfathers.
Let us look after them. As I said, the
subcommittee chairman accepted this
amendment last year. I had hoped
that he would accept it again this
year.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment,
and I will not take the full 5 minutes
allotted to me because I do not think
it is necessary.
It really offends me to think that
there are people who assume that
every pervert in the world wants to
work in this industry, and that all of
those people who are working out
there very diligently and conscien-
tiously should be polygraphed in order
to prove that they are conscientious
and diligent, and yet there are people
who are looking to work in these pro-
fessions because of their dedication to
aiding and helping the elderly and
children in daycare centers and other
places.
I hate to think that we have to
worry every time we send a child to
school or to preschool or anytime we
put one of our elderly parents or rela-
tives in a day care home. I hate to
think that we have to worry about all
the perverts that are working there
and all the perverts that want to apply
for jobs there. It goes back to what
one of my colleagues said. You are in-
nocent until you are proven guilty, but
this assumes you are guilty before you
are proven innocent. That is offensive.
I do not see that there is anything
wrong in requiring employers to do a
diligent job if investigating the back-
grounds of the individuals who are ap-
plying, looking at their credentials and
histories and seeing what they are and
who they are. I am sure that in the
multitude of people working out there
in those industries there is no reason
to be alarmed. I resent the inference
that all of those people need to be po-
lygraphed.
Mr. Chairman, I also resent the in-
ference that America is going to hell
in a hand basket if we do not allow the
polygraph to be used.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word, and I rise
In opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is true that this
bill does not prevent the public sector,
that is, law enforcement officers, the
FBI, the National Security Council,
and all the rest, from using the poly-
graph. They use the lie detector under
very restrained and highly regulated
circumstances. This bill does not have
jurisdiction over that matter and does
not affect it.
But I remind my colleagues again
that our local police agencies, the FBI,
the National Security Council, the
CIA, and the other public agencies
througout the United States adminis-
ter only 2 percent of the lie detector
tests given in the United States. What
we are trying to do here is restrain the
vast bulk of the quick, easy, simple, in-
expensive, unreliable tests that are
given in the United States.
Yes, we accepted this amendment
the last time. We accepted it at almost
midnight after 6 or 7 hours of debate.
We felt that the Senate would not
take this bill with that amendment in
it or would strip that amendment. I
guess we were correct about the
former. The Senate did not take the
bill. It was a mistake on our part to
accept this amendment.
I ask my colleagues, have they read
the amendment? It says that any em-
ployee or prospective employee of a
nursing home facility has to undergo a
lie detector test. I wonder how many
people that is in the United States?
prospective employees of nursing
homes. It means that not only would
we be strapping in and plugging in the
doctors, the nurses, and the specialists
that work in nursing homes, but we
would also be giving the lie detector
test to the fellow that raises the flag
in the morning outside the nursing
home and takes it down at night. We
would also be strapping in the secre-
tary that works in the front office and
provides only indirect service to any of
those elderly citizens In the nursing
home. The groundskeeper who is out
there cutting the lawn and trying to
keep the place looking nice for those
senior citizens and the people visiting
them would have to undergo a lie de-
tector test under this amendment.
Do we want to keep our senior citi-
zens safe in the nursing homes in this
country? Absolutely. Of course we do.
And that may mean that we ought to
raise the minimum wage in America,
because, as the gentleman from Flori-
da has noted, one of the reasons, in his
opinion, that we get less then perhaps
excellent employees in nursing homes
is because we do not pay them enough.
We will see how the gentleman and his
colleagues vote when the minimum
wage bill comes up perhaps next year.
Yes, we need good personnel prac-
tices, including good wages and good
benefits in the nursing homes. We
need a screening process. But we just
maintain that to make every employee
and every prospective employee of the
nursing homes in the United States
undergo this demeaning test is wrong.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the gen-
telman from Texas.
Mr BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, there will be a lot of
debate no doubt on this, but I do want
to be sure to clarify and give the gen-
tleman a chance to clarify his state-
ment as to what the amendment says.
I have a copy of it if the gentleman
has not been provided one.
The amendment does not provide
that every employee or any employee
of any nursing home will be subjected
to a polygraph test The amendment
merely says that this act shall not pro-
hibit the use of the polygraph by an
employer of employees at a nursing
home. The amendment does not man-
date the employers to do any more or
any less than they are doing now.
It goes on to say that this subsection
is not going to preempt any State law
which in most States places rather
stringent standards and in most States
prohibits the use of the polygraph as
the sole determinant.
So when the gentleman told us that
this amendment provides that all em-
ployees of nursing homes will be re-
quired to take a polygraph test, I just
want to bring to the gentleman's at-
tention the fact that that is not true.
This amendment provides that this act
will not prohibit the use of the poly-
graph, but it does not require it for
anybody.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, re-
claiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman's explanation. He is, of
course, correct. I did not mean to and I
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
believe that I did not misrepresent the
amendment. This simply allows nurs-
ing home owners to polygraph any em-
ployee or any prospective employee,
from the groundskeeper to the flag
raiser.
Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, a lot of times here we
talk in the ephemeral world. We talk
in legalities, and we do not talk about
what actually happens in the real
world. We forget, on the one hand,
that we have in the past, and State
legislatures have in the past, enacted
precisely legislation which does not
allow certain information to come out.
Yes, you can in some cases get con-
viction records if those conviction
records have not been sealed, but you
cannot get arrest records. And as
many of us know, in many situations
around the country, because of the
overcrowding of our court system, of-
tentimes a plea bargain will take place
to an offense that is a lesser offense or
to an offense that may be only tangen-
tially involved with the facts of the
crime committed.
So in some cases we may have some-
one whose actions gave rise to a crime
which would bring some cause to have
alarm about having that individual
taking care of the elderly. Yet there is
no way the employer can check on
that.
When the Subcommittee on Health
and Long-Term Care of the Select
Committee on Aging held hearings on
the rights of America's institutional-
ized aged, they heard testimony from
one of the representatives from Cali-
fornia, the executive director of the
Commission on California State Gov-
ernment Organization and Economy,
that has gone in and looked at the
level of care of the institutionalized el-
derly. He indicated that although
under California law the applicant,
that is, the person whose actual name
would be on the license for the com-
munity care facility is screened for
past criminal record, there is?and
these are his words?"no way of know-
ing whether his employees have a
criminal record. We received testimo-
ny on various cases in which employ-
ees with criminal records raped, beat,
and abandoned residents."
That is what we are talking about
here. We are not talking about the guy
who is raising the flag in the morning
and has no connection with the pa-
tients involved. We are talking about
prospective employees with criminal
records who would rape, beat, and
abandon residents. These are the el-
derly in our community care facilities.
That is pretty serious. That ought to
be something that we are concerned
about in this House. So when we talk
about this amendment, let us talk
about the practical. Let us talk about
an 80-year-old woman who is bedrid-
den, who is being treated in one of
these facilities, and who is at the
mercy of the employees there. And so
I ask, should we say to her after she
has been beaten or raped, "Well,
maybe if we had had a little bit better
information about that person, we
wouldn't have hired him. But, you
know, we had to make sure that
person didn't suffer the indignity of
having to take a lie detector test as
part of the entire screening; nonethe-
less we will make sure that that
person is not employed tomorrow to
rape or to beat you."
This is the real world. We are not
making these things up. This is from
the testimony of people who have
looked at what has happened in my
home State of California.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that
we ought to be concerned about that.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LUNGREN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from California.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank the gentleman for yield-
ing.
What the gentleman says is very ac-
curate and very true. It is something
we should consider very carefully. It is
not just a possibility.
Just yesterday, I believe it was, a
man pleaded guilty to killing 13
people, and they think there were
many more, in a hospital. This is a not
unsimilar situation.
Mr. Chairman, this is something we
do owe to our people. Why should we
say that the secrets of the Defense De-
partment are more sacred than the
lives and well-being of our elderly citi-
zens?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LUNGREN. I am happy to yield
to the author of this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank the gentleman from Cali-
fornia for his contribution. He has
made some very, very strong and per-
suasive points here. In support of that,
let me just hold up these relatively im-
portant copies of newspaper stories
telling how previous employers are not
responding to requests for information
about employees that might have
worked for them because if they give a
bad recommendation, they are getting
sued. In some cases they are getting
sued if they give a good recommenda-
tion.
They are just buttoning up in many
cases, and it is getting more difficult
all the time to learn something about
an applicant from a previous employ-
er.
Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for offering his
amendment, and I hope we will have a
unanimous vote in favor of this
amendment.
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong sup-
port of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. YOUNG],
and I want to commend him for realiz-
9553
ing that here we have a very obvious
flaw in the Williams bill that must be
addressed and that I think certainly is
addressed by this amendment.
I think it is interesting to note, Mr.
Chairman, that if this House of Repre-
sentatives has gone on record for any
one thing or any one subject or any
one topic, it has been taking action to
better the lot and the lives of our el-
derly people in this country. I think to
take away, as this bill would do, the
right to see that those persons who
care for and administer care to our el-
derly are not properly investigated
would indeed be setting a bad, bad
precedent here on the floor of the
House of Representatives.
0 1325
Further example of how unfair the
situation has become, Mr. Chairman,
under the bill as it now stands, a
person who is charged, a young person
who is charged with stealing $3.50
worth of candy from a store can be po-
lygraphed by the police; but at the
same time a person who may have a
serious record of convictions, and the
amount of convictions may not have
been divulged, cannot be polygraphed
by the owners of a nursing home.
It is important to note that, let us
not take away this valuable investiga-
tive tool which should be used in con-
junction with, not solely for the pur-
pose of determining suitability for a
particular job, but in conjunction with
all other evidence to screen out these
people who might not be employable.
I was gratified last year when the
committee accepted this amendment,
but now it appears to be an opposite
situation here today.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DARDEN. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
I want to refer to the point the gen-
tleman makes on the validity of a lie-
detector test, because it is given by a
police department and not used in evi-
dence.
A court of law does not recognize it,
because the polygraph is recognized as
invalid. They cannot use it in evidence.
If the police are using it, they are
using it as a supplement, and that re-
quires them to dig up the hard evi-
dence, and more than just that poly-
graph test.
I think the argument is the kind of
an argument that confuses us into
giving credibility to the use of a lie de-
tector test in the private workplace.
Mr. DARDEN. The police can, under
this bill, continue to use a polygraph
unfettered as they have in many years
throughout this country.
What it does prohibit as it stands
now is the right of a person who may
go to work in a nursing home to care
for our elderly, they cannot have that
type of background check.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9554 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE November 4, 1987
Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAMAN. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. ' LUNGRES: Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
The police departments use the lie
detector tests in precisely the same
way we are asking' under this amend-
ment that employers, in taking care of
the elderly, use it; that is, in employ-
ment situations. -
That is where the police use it today,
and the Supreme Court has said that
they can use it They can use it for
employment circumstances.
We are not talking. about using it for
criminal circumstances here. We. are
talking about using it for employment
circumstances.
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for making that
point.
We are contending that the poly-
graph ought to be used in evidence,
even though. it might be permitted to
be used in evidence by stipulation, in
some States.
We are making the point that once
more the polygraph should be used as
the same investigatiVe tool by owners
of nursing homes. lust as police offi-
cers can use it.
It is a valuable investigative tool
which should not be taken. away from
the possible benefit to the elderly.
Mr. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DARDEN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Montana.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman. I
thank the gentleman for yielding. ,
Who ought to investigate crime?
This bill sayrff the police departments
want to investigate crime and want to
use the He detector to investigate
crime, let them do it; but what some of
the Members on the floor seem to
want is to allow private Industry to
become- police departments, and not
only that, but they want to allow pri-
vate industry to use the gadget in a
way we do not? allow law enforcement
to use it; and that is, for preemploy-
ment. for people who never committed
a crime.
The Members would allow the
owners of nursing homes to require a
secretary seeking a Job in a nursing
home to be sat down, strapped in and
plugged in. We do not let the law-en-
forcement agencies in this country do
that. That is a far broader situation
that the gentleman wants to create.
Mr. WALKER Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in support of the amendment
and I would say to the gentleman from
Montana that what the gentleman
just said is wrong with regard to what
we do in this body.
Just a few moments ago the staff
checked with the Capitol Police, and
guess what. For the protection of our
selves around here, we ailow the Cap-
itol Police to have two full-time exam-
iners who do nothing but screen all ap-
plicants for the Capitol Police Force,
to check the info that is on their ap-
plications, not for _investigative work
of criminals.
We allow our Capitol Police to
screen all their applicants about the
Information that is on their applica-
tions.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER.. I yield to the gentle-
man from Montana.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
My question IS, do we allow the Cap-
itol Police, or any other police depart-
ment, to use the lie detector test to
screen prospective employees of nurs-
ing homes or banks or anywhere else?
That is what this amendment allows,
nursing homes, so I was not wrong.
Mr. WALKER. No, we are allowing
the Capitol Police Force, in terms of
the people that apply to work at the
Capitol Police Force, to use lie detec-
tor tests to screen those applicants, ex-
actly what the gentleman from Flori-
da wants to do in terms of nursing
homes, screening their own applicants.
It is exactly the same.
What we now have is a standard
whieh says that to Protest ourselves,
we will have one standard. To protect
the elderly of America, we will have
another standard.
That is an abomination. Once again,
we have legislation on the Boor that
says we are somehow above the law,
that this particular body of men and
women is better than the law, that
what we are going to take away from
private industry, we are not willing to
take away from ourselves, became
there is nothing in this bill that takes
away from our ability to use lie detec-
tors to screen the people that protect
us.
I cannot understand it. Why is it day
after day, week after week we are
bringing bills tto the floor that say we
are better than the rest of the Ameri-
can people?
/ would think it would get to be an
embarrassment after a while. To find
out the gentleman from Florida wants
to protect the elderly of America, and
we say no, you cannot do that. When
It comes to protecting ourselves, we
are going to have the best equipment
in our arsenal to do so.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman- yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank the gentleman for yield-
ing to me.
I want to make sure I understand
the gentleman's point. If it is proper
to use a polygraph examination to
screen those who protect Members of
the U.S. Congress, then it should be
proper to use that same process, that
same quote gadget unquote- to protect
elderly people lying in nursing homes
who cannot take care of themselves
nearly as well as we can here in Con-
gress. Is that what the gentleman is
saying?
Mr. WALKER. I would say to the
gentleman, I think it is probably more
important to have that particular abil-
ity rather than for ourselves.
Maybe those people Who are bring
helpless in nursing homer deserve
more protection than whist we deserve
In the U.S. Congress, and so the- gen-
tleman is absolutely correct, and that
Is the point I am making.
If the technique is good enough. if it
Is good enough for elderly Americans,
it is good enough for employers all the
way across this country.
I find it very, very disturbing that
day after day,, week after week we are
saying we are. somehow better than
the rest of America,.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Montana.
Mr. WIIIIAMS Mr. Chairman. I
thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
Does the gentleman, know in. this
matter of the House being duplicitous
here on Capitol Hill, does the gentle-
man know whether or not the Capitol
Police, give lie detector tests, to that
fellow that raises the flag, and to those
secretaries that work in the office of
the gentleman from. Pennsylvania, be-
cause this amendment. allows nursing
home owners, not public officials, to
rive the lie detector test to people. ap-
plying for a job to, cut lawn outside
the nursing home?
Mr. WALKER. The gentleman's bill
exempts all government employees, so
it is my undeestancittec and in the
same way that the. gentleman's
amendment. allows the nursing home
operators to behave, we are. allowed to
behave ourselves.
If we wanted to test the people who
raised the flag in the morning, we
could under the gentleman's bilt; but
under the gentleman's bill, the nurs-
ing home operator does not have that
option.
The gentleman from Florida is
saying that your bill. ought to give the
nursing homes that option.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, will
the- gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Texas:
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
We need to get back to what the bill
says, and I propound the question to
the sponsor of the bill; or any of the
sponsors including the. gentleman
from Montana.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania
Wmansid has expired.
(On request of Mr. Marra= and by
unanimous consent, Mr Wax= was
allowed to, proceed for $ additional
minutes.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will
offer the explanation that in accord
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 9555
ance with the precedents, the Chair
will recognize members of the commit-
tee, first priority, and then those non-
members in accordance with seniority.
I thought that explanation would be
in order to understand the recognition
by the Chair of diverse Members who
have sought recognition.
Mr. WALKER. We thank the Chair.
Mr. Chairman, I yield further to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. BART-
LETT].
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
I would propound the question to
the sponsors of the legislation.
Would they then accept an amend-
ment to permit nursing-home opera-
tors to use the polygraph as one deter-
minant in hiring those employees that
deal directly with the elderly in a way
in which it is an occupation?
If that is an amendment that is ac-
ceptable, then perhaps the sponsor of
the bill should accept the amendment
with that change in it, and we could go
on to the next amendment.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I
would be glad to yield to the gentle-
man from Montana to see if the gen-
tleman wants to have that reasonable
amendment added to the bill.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
The sponsor of the bill believes that
one cannot cure baldness through the
application of electricity, just as one
believes that a box plugged into a wall
cannot determine through the applica-
tion of electricity whether the person
is telling a truth or a lie.
The sponsor of the bill is opposed to
the use of the lie detector gadget.
Mr. WALKER. Let me say to the
sponsor of the bill, what the gentle-
man is saying is, it is perfectly all right
when it comes to protecting the gen-
tleman, when the Capitol Police use it
to protect him, and the gentleman's
bill in now way says we are going to
take that power away from the Cap-
itol Police when it comes to protecting
the gentleman?
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Texas.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
I further inquire as to whether or
not the sponsor would accept an
amendment to unexempt Congress
from this bill.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will continue to yield,
the sponsor of this bill will cosign a
bill introduced by the gentleman from
Texas to take away from the Capitol
Police the use of the lie detector
gadget.
Will the gentleman offer that?
Mr. BARTLETT. It would not be a
bill; it would be an amendment to this
bill.
Mr. WILLIAMS. My bill would have
jurisdiction over this. If the gentleman
can offer this amendmermt to strip
the use of the lie detector from the
Capitol Police, his gentleman will sup-
port it; and I will tell the gentleman
why.
Spies and terrorists, people intent on
doing the Members any bodily harm
can go through a lie detector like
water through a sieve.
If we are depending on the lie detec-
tor to protect ourselves, we are in a lot
of trouble.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will continue to yield,
the sponsor of the bill is being
straightforward and honest then.
The gentleman wants to prohibit
polygraphs in all cases. The House will
consider an amendment to remove the
congressional exemption from this
bill.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, re-
claiming my time, we also do lie detec-
tor tests of the people who work on
our intelligence committees, for exam-
ple.
It goes much further than that
when we are relying on protecting the
intelligence of this country, using the
employees of this body, and we use lie
detectors there too.
The gentleman thinks they are some
sort of a witchcraft, but we do depend
upon them.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
WALKER] has again expired.
(On request of Mr. YOUNG of Florida,
and by unanimous consent, Mr.
WALKER was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
The Stillwell Commission, the group
that studied the problems with securi-
ty leaks throughout this country,
pointed out the problem with poly-
graphs is not the fact that people can
avoid them.
The problem is that they are not ad-
ministered in a way that does not tip
somebody off as to when those tests
are going to be administered; and in
fact, if you study the whole Walker
situation, the senior Walker told his
son, "Don't get yourself in a position
where you are ever going to be poly-
graphed, because that is how you are
going to get discovered."
Using a polygraph in national securi-
ty is a very valuable tool in terms of
trying to prevent this kind of thing
from happening. They are recom-
mending more use of the polygraph,
not less, when it comes to national se-
curity.
That point ought not to be missed
when we are looking at something as
sensitive as this.
0 1340
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman.
Let me yield to the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank the gentleman for yield-
ing.
An important point has been raised
relative to who believes the polygraph
works or does not work.
This latest conversation prompts me
to read this statement from Christo-
pher Boyce. Christopher Boyce ap-
pearing before the Senate Committee
on Governmental Affairs made this
statement. Christopher Boyce is very
infamous in that while he worked for
one of our defense contactors, he sold
out to the KGB and provided them
with some very strategic information
that harmed us considerably.
Christopher Boyce said that the
KGB officer who was his charge told
him that they had ways to beat the
polygraph. Christopher Boyce said to
the Senate:
I knew I could not pass the polygraph and
greatly feared it. That same fear heightened
my resolve never to accept direct employ-
ment with the CIA because they require a
polygraph.
Now, Christopher Boyce, I think,
should be paid attention to because he
has cost us a lot of money and he has
given the Soviets some very important
strategic information that belonged to
us, that we developed. Unfortunately
we are getting away from the amend-
ment at hand. The subject before us
now is are we going to give elderly
people in nursing homes the protec-
tion of having an opportunity to
screen prospective employees who are
going to be tending them in the wee
hours. That is the issue. Are we going
to do that or not?
Unfortunately we have allowed the
debate to move in the wrong direction.
The proponents of this bill are trying
to create the illusion that we are going
to polygraph, that we want to poly-
graph everyone who applies for a job
anywhere in the world. That is not the
case, not the case at all.
First of all, to conduct a polygraph
examination takes time.
No. 2, it is extremely costly and if
you think that all these industries just
want to indiscriminately use poly-
graphs, you are wrong, but it is a very
good tool and the existence of the pro-
gram itself will be very helpful.
But let us not allow this debate to
move off in 20 directions. This debate,
this moment, is whether or not we are
going to give protection to the elderly
people in America's nursing homes.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania has
again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. WALKER
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, let
me say to the gentleman, and I will
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9556 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE November 4, .1.987
yield to the gentleman in a moment,
but let messy to the gentleman that I
think it is important that we refocus
the debate on his amendment.
What this gentleman is saying is we
ought to do unto ethers, namely, the
elderly, what we winkle/ do unto our-
selves, namely, we allow our Capitol
Police to administer lie detector teats
when it comes to protecting us. They
do it on the basis of job applications.
That is- the mime standard of protec-
tion that we ought to allow to the el-
derly of this country.
Mr. NEAL, Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER.. I am very glad to
yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
I agree with the gentleman that we
ought to be on this subiect, but the
gentleman from Florida made a very
Important point The gentleman from
Florida said that the spy. that he
quoted was afraid of the polygraph.
That is precisely the point.
The point is that the polygraph tests
do not work. They are not he detector
tests. They we unreliable, no more ac-
curate than the flip of a coin, but
there are people who are afraid of
them. There are some people out
there who believe that they work and
in those eases when there are people
who believe that they work; the threat
of a polygraph can elicit a desired re-
sponse; but as more and more people
learn that they, do not work, they will
be become less and leas effective.
This is the most important point,
since they are unreliable and many
people do it, the most dangerous
people, the peojie who would be most
dangerous to our national security or
to our elderly or to us here, the terror-
ists and so on, knew how to beat them.
There are mental techniques, drugs,
and other ways to beat the polygraph.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. Let me regain my
time and yield to the gentleman from
Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I think
that the gentleman from North Caro-
lina has established his entire support
for this bill on the fallibility of the
polygraph system. The gentleman
cited a few studies and challenged us
to come up with studies of our own.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania has
again expired.
(At the request of Mr. DrLatv, and
by unanimous consent, Mr. WALKER
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.
Mr. WALKER I yield to the gentle-
man from Texas.
Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, I would
ask the gentleman after my statement
if he will change his support for the
bill if we can cite to the gentleman nu-
merous studies that show the accuracy
of the polygraph.
In 1984, the Department of Defense
called for a study to be done of the
number of studies in the United States
that have been done on the accuracy
of the polygraph. I would just like to
cite a few of them.
From Dr. Berland, University of
Utah, 89.7 percent accurate.
Mr. Philip Bersh, Temple University,
92.4 percent accurate.
Mr. Richard Blum, Stanford Univer-
sity, 96.2 percent accurate.
Dr. Frank Horvarth, 67.8 percent ac-
curate.
Dr. David Raskin, 96 percent accu-
rate, and I could go on and en. I have
got the book coming over. It is about
that thick of all the studies that have
been done that show that it is as accu-
rate as most chug testing or any other
tools that are being used in employ-
ment; so I can show the gentleman
that there are as many, if not more
studies, that show at least 85 percent
rocuracy of the polygraph.
I will ask the gentleman, will he now
change his support for the bill, be-
cause I have as many, if not more,
than the gentleman has on the accura-
cy- of the polygraph.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield to me to respond?
Mr. WALICERA am happy to yield
to the gentleman from North Caroli-
na.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, I would
refer the gentleman to the distin-
guished Republican Member from
Utah who is a former professor of sta.
tiaties. I think he will point out to the
gentleman if we can get him involved
in this debate that at those levels of
accuracy, and I am not a statistician
and I cannot make his argument for
him, but I wish the gentleman was
here to make it, because I think he
could demonstrate that at these levels,
and this comes as news to me, frankly,
because the studies I have seen indi-
cate that they are much less reliable
than the gentleman indicates, but
even at these levels the gentleman is
talking about, the level of inaccuracy
would be one that would be a very
dangerous one for us to trust, to I
hope that when the gentleman from
Utah returns we can get involved in
this.
Mr. DaLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I. am happy to yield
to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DELAY. Mr., Chairman, I am
looking for the gentleman from Utah,
the statistician, because three of the
studies were done by the University of
Utah.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman. from Pennsylvania has
once again expired..
(By unanimous consent, Mr. WALKER
was allowed to proceed for an addi-
tional 10 seconds.)
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I do
so just to bring the subject matter
back, protect the elderly the same as
we protect ourselves. Vote for the
amendment of the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. JEFFORDS asked and was.
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. JEFIi/ORDS. Mr. Chairman, the
key question here is whether or not
passing this amendment will do any-
thing to protect the elderly. That is
the question.
Related to that is the question of
the validity of preemployment testing.
Now, the gentleman from Texas
mentioned some studies, and if my
memory serves me eorrectly these
studies were done by the polygraphers
about themselves, or related to studies
of polygraphers, or at least did not
deal with preemployment testing.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I will yield to ask
the gentleman this question. Did they
deal with preemployment testing?
Mr. DeLAY. Yes, the studies dealt
with preemployment testing and these
were not conducted by polygraphers.
These tests were performed by profes-
sors in universities that made studies
commission by private organisations-
and compiled by the Department of
Defense in 1984. These individuals are
not polygraphers.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Well, I would just
point to the OTA. the Office of Tech-
nology Assessment of the Congress,
which did a study of the studies, and
those were not commented on there,
and found that there is no study, to
their knowledge at that time, that
showed any validity to preemployment
testing. That is the issue here, because
we are weighing issues here dealing
with the private sector which we do
not have with the Government sector.
Now, as to government use of the po-
lygraphers I will recite some informa-
tion that came to me this morning by
virtue of my being on C-SPAN. I was
talking with a polygrapher who did
some preemployment testing for a
police department. I will get to that
matter in a minute.
The question here is an interest-
weighing matter. The important point
here is the polygraph test is not reli-
able. Let us take a look at what the
courts have said about this and how
long they have said ft.. The first case in
the U.S. Supreme Court case dealing
with polygraphs was in 1923. This
Issue and dtricUssion On it has been in
existence for probably 70 years. Yet
still the courts will not allow this test
to come into evidence. This should be
distinguished from drug testing and all
those kind of things which are allowed
in evidence in courts under Certain cir-
cumstances. Let us not be confused by
these analogies-
Also. it should be pointed out that
this particular amendment Is opposed
by the American Medical Association,
the American Psychologists Associa-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE
tion and the American Nurses Associa-
tion. These tests administered here
under these circtmatances are humi-
liating. They are an invasion of priva-
cy with the questions that are asked.
They have no known validity in the
preemployment testing situation, the
private sector interests should be dis-
tinguished frtun the military and
others who come forward and are
placed in a position of nations/ securi-
ty. They are considered to have waived
some of thew rights. Certainly that
would be true with respect to police of-
ficers dealing with us here in applying
for positions which Involve that kind
of rigorous testing required for such
tests and responsibilities. This is not
true when you talk about people de-
serving and work for nursing homes,
et cetera in the private sector.
Let me relate to you the experience
I had this morning to show you how
these polygraphs are used or rather
misused. On C-SPAN this morning,
naturally I was challenged by poly-
grs,phera One was the police depart-
ment examiner in one of the Virginia
areas. He called and said, "It is very
reliable. We had a hundred applies-
tions for four positions In the police
department I examined them and in
96 cases I could tell they were drug ad-
dicts, criminals or sexual abusers.
Therefore, we were able to hire the
only four that came forward that I
could tell were really honest and
would make police officers and they
have."
Now, can you believe that that
would occur? He must have been sit-
ting outside of the State prison exam-
ining people coming out the door and
looking for jobs. That is the kind of ri-
diculous response you get from some
polygraph operators.
I point that out because what, we are
basically concerned with here is the
protection of people, yes but it is pro-
tection also of those who want to be
there to try to protect people.
Since the polygraph has no demon-
strated.reliability In this kind of gnus-
tion, what we are trying to say here, at
least In the preemployment situation,
is that we should not subject people to
such intimidating and unreliable tests,
thus eliminating people from being
able to work by virture of a test which
absolutely has no known validity in
the preempklyment situation.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida.. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JETFORDS. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank the gentleman for yield-
ing.
Since we got away from the elderly
nursing home amendment once again
and we are back on the bill, let me tell
you why the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Dtaratri) and myself have sug-
gested this substitute, because we mit
in there a Bill of Rights for that
person who might be examined by a
polygrapher. A substitute says
A polygrapher may not ask a question
during the actual examination unless such
question is in writing and has been reviewed
with the examinee prior to such examine.
tion.
That takes care of the problem the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 'Yuma-
said mentioned earlier in the debate
when they could not pronounce the
name of his high schooL
A polygraph examiner may not inquire
Into (a) religious beliefs or atlinatione
metal beliefs or opbsioiosi political beliefs or
affiliations sexual preferences or aetirftles,
beliefs affiliations or opinions regarding
unions or labor organisations. Each prospec-
tive examinee shall be required to sign s.
notice before the beginning of each poly-
graph examination that he understands the
limitations imposed on the examiner; that
the examinee may terminate the examina-
tion at any time that the examinee inn
legal rights and remedies if the polygraph
examination is not conducted in accordance
with this title.
And it goes on.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Vermont has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Twee of
Florida, and by unanimous consent,
Mr JILITORDS was allowed to proceed
for I additional minute.)
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida Let me add
this further point This is a bill of
rights to protect the person who will
be examined by a polygrapher.
Now, under the Williams bill, there
is no such guarantee. There is no bill
of rights for the examinee in the bill
before us.
This substitute is the only legisla-
tion pending today that protects the
rights of the examinee. That is why
we should adopt this substitute later
on to do just that. There are going to
be polygraph examinations whether
the Williams bill passes or not; so at
least let us make them professional
and provide a bill of rights for the ex-
aminee now Mr. Chairman, bat at this
point let us get back to the issue at
hand, which is protection of the elder-
ly in nursing homes, because that is
the issue before us right new.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Vermont has again
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. ar-
royos was allowed to proceed for 2 ad-
ditional minutes.)
Mr. JEFFORDS. Well, it is hire, Mr.
Chairman, that under the Williams
bill there would be no Bill of Rights
because there would be no examina-
tion. You do not need a bill of rights
to protect you from something which
Is prohibited.
Now, if the gentleman is saying that
It would expand to other areas that
may be allowed, that may be lure and
I would certainly have no quarrel with
that aspect of It. But here we are in-
volved here wilb the question of valid-
ity and nothing You can de is going to
make something that has been shown
H 9557
not to be valid enough to be consid-
ered in evidence for 70 years to be sud-
denly valid now. I ant sure that ques-
tions not have been asked, have been
changed and reordered by polygraph
examiners over the years to try and
get admissible results. Yet they still
cannot get results which are reliable
enough to let the courts admit them.
into evidence.
So I would say right now the ques-
tion is whether or not these testa are
valid the evidence is very clear that
they are not valid, potentional em-
ployees should not be subjected to
such humiliating tests and questions
In preemployment situations.
0 1355
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I am sure the gentleman from
Vermont did not do this intentionally,
but he misspoke.. Under the Williams
bill millions of Americans can be poly-
graphed. Those who work for the U.S.
Government, those who Week for the
governments of all the 60 States, those
who work for the governments of the
thousands of counties and the thou-
sands and thousands of cites can all be
polygraphed.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Reclaiming my
time, I will admit that the gentleman
Is correct and add that is true for some
employees of the defense industry.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. All of those
people are subject to polygraph by the
Williams bill. I do not think the gen-
tleman intended to misspeak, but un-
fortunately he did.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, /
would say that the gentleman is cor-
rect in that. Of course those situations
other than the Federal Government
are not under our jurisdiction, other-
wise we may have given consideration
to covering them. However, that does
not diminish my arguments relative to
the non validity of the tests.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. JIWPORDS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield to the gentleman from Califor-
nia.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, the
point is they are susceptible to being
polygraphed and are not part of the
Federal Government. The point is
there are tens of thousands of those
who have no business being poly-
graphed because they have not done
anything wrong to begin with, who are
going to be polygraphed if this bill
does not pass.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I agree with the
gentleman. We are here to protect the
private sector, also, as well as deal
with Government agencies.
Mr. Chairman, I again urge may co/-
leagues that this amendment be de-
feated.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman,
move to strike the last word.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9558
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE November 4, 1987
Mr. Chairman, I think this debate is
down to the point now where we ought
to be talking about what is reasonable.
Everything we do in this Congress, it
seems to me, is all part of our checks
and balances, that old balance wheel
that we have talked about in many of
these debates comes into play here, it
seems to me.
What are the inherent evils of the
polygraph test? I do not think there
are inherent evils. If the polygraph is
given to somebody, there may be har-
assment, there is potential for abuse
of it in the preemployment practice,
no doubt about it, but in the sense
that it is inherently evil that some-
body will suffer physical ailment or
somebody is going to die from it or
somebody is going to be irreparably in-
jured by it, that is highly improbable
that that would occur. On balance, the
question is under what circumstances,
if any, will the polygraph examination
be given in the employment scenario?
It seems to me that when one weighs
the limited amount of evil, if that is
what it is to be called, or problems for
somebody seeking employment in a
nursing home, the harassment and po-
tential abuse that might be there
weighed against the harm that could
occur to the elderly if we denied the
owners and operators of nursing
homes the opportunity to preemploy-
ment screen with a polygraph, I think
that we have to come down firmly on
the side of the elderly in allowing the
employment screening to take place.
The fact of the matter is that there
will always be debate over the techni-
cal validity, of the polygraph, whether
it is 85, 90.12 percent accurate. Let me
say to my colleagues, drug tests are
not all accurate. We had a great
debate over the AIDS test, and a lot of
people still sax, people in the medical
profession, say the AIDS test does not
screen out all the necessary things to
make certain determinations.
The point is that the polygraph test,
by the evidence I have seen, and I
have seen a lot of it as my colleagues
have also seen it, is extremely valid for
the purposes of preemployment
screening if an employer uses other
things besides simply the polygraph.
which we would be required I am sure
under any form of this legislation, the
substitute or this one, the tests that
the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
YOUNG) has proposed in his substitute
would seem eminently fair. These
would provide the degree of safe-
guards necessary to let the polygraph
be used for the protection of the elder-
ly.
I had a grandmother in a nursing
home, some of my colleagues have had
their parents or grandparents in a
nursing home. I think most of the
nursing homes of this country are to
be respected. There has been a great
improvement over the last few years in
the quality of care and inspections,
but elderly people in nursing homes
themselves are often not capable of
understanding certain things, or pro-
tecting themselves. They are among
the most vulnerable citizens of this
country. They are people that I am
sure every Member of this body wants
to be sure their interests are protect-
ed. The fact is they can have valuable
possessions in their rooms that could
be easily stolen. As the debate brought
out earlier, in a nursing home, an el-
derly citizen can be attacked by the
wrong person working there. We have
had documented cases of rape and of
physical abuse to the elderly in nurs-
ing homes by people who have no busi-
ness being employees of those nursing
homes. The polygraph itself is not
going to be a guarantee to get rid of
all those people but it seems to me on
balance. and I think that is what we
have to do here as a body, if we are
weighing the good and the evil of the
use of the polygraph, in this case the
good, the need for the polygraph in
the nursing home setting to protect
the elderly far outweighs any harm
that could possibly occur in the em-
ployment area to somebody who might
want to work in a nursing home.
There are a lot of other places, if
somebody is worried about getting a
job and being rejected, where they can
go to work where they will not worry,
and we will not worry, about what
kind of threat they will be to the el-
derly, to the health and safety of the
elderly and to their possessions.
It is just not responsible for this
body to allow a bill like this to go
through that would prohibit the em-
ployer in a nursing home context from
screening people who work in that es-
tablishment who take care of the el-
derly, who are on guard around the
clock at midnight when everybody else
has gone home. It is not reasonable
for us to prohibit that employer from
using the polygraph, from using every
reasonable means to protect the elder-
ly that are in that nursing home facili-
ty.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my
colleagues to put some common sense
into this debate. Whatever my col-
leagues think about the use of the
polygraph in general, the gentleman
from Florida's [Mr. Youriol amend-
ment on nursing homes is eminently
fair and logical, and a balanced ap-
proach to this process. We need to
have an amendment in this bill that
exempts nursing homes.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues
to vote for the Young amendment.
Mr. WORTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
the Young amendment. As a member
of the Select Committee on Aging, I
am acutely aware of the special con-
cerns of the elderly and those involved
with caring for the elderly. This
amendment realistically confronts a
very sad reality facing our seniors?a
reality that involves cases of physical
and psychological abuse, violation of
rights, and financial exploitation in
nursing homes.
Let met make it clear from the start
that my comments in no way typify
employees and professionals of the
nursing home industry, but rather
some particular cases which could be
avoided in the future by the use of
polygraph testing.
Physical abuse in nursing homes
comes in many forms ranging from
simple neglect to being strapped to a
bed and left in the dark for hours. Oc-
casionally, actual beatings occur which
result in cuts, bruises, and broken
bones.
Psychological abuse is even more di-
verse, ranging from verbal assaults to
protracted efforts to dehumanize an
elderly person.
Additionally, violation of fundamen-
tal inalienable rights occur in nursing
homes. This includes violation of the
right to adequate, appropriate medical
treatment and the right to a clean,
safe, living environment, among
others.
Finally, financial exploitation by
nursing home employees has been ac-
complished through force, fraud,
deceit and misrepresentation. I am
talking about documented cases in
which employees have physically
forced seniors into signing checks and
cosigner release forms.
Allowing nursing home employers to
use polygraph testing would signifi-
cantly aid in weeding out those few?
and I emphasize few?employees or
applicants who pose a direct physical,
Psychological or financial threat to
the elderly.
Currently, it is conceivable that a
person with a history of physical as-
sault coud gain employment, undetect-
ed, in a nursing home. Polygraph test-
ing is one important and necessary
option tO help make it impossible for a
person to carry a bad track record, in
terms of nursing home employment,
from one location to Another. I sin-
cerely believe that nursing home em-
ployers should be permitted to use this
testing method to aid their efforts to
keep criminals away from the elderly.
I support this amendment since it
provides a much needed tool in pro-
tecting our senior citizens. We have al-
ready made an exemption to the poly-
graph prohibition for reasons of na-
tional security, and I cannot accept
that it is any less important to protect
our elderly?your parents, my parents,
my 87-year-old mother who resides in
a nursing home. I urge your consider-
ation and strong support of this cru-
cial exemption to H.R. 1212.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
hope that I will not take my full time.
but I think there are two important
Items that need to be added to the dis-
cussion on the amendment of the gen-
tleman from Florida [Mr. Youero].
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Nommber 4, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? HOUSE
I rise in support of this amendment
and I rise in sarong support of this
amendment. because I would call to
the attention of every one of my col-
leagues and particularly my colleagues
on. the Democratic aide of the aisle, to
take a look at the 1285 May report by
the Select Committee on Aging on "El-
derly Abuse: A National Disgrace."'
0 1406
Take a look at that report and take
a look at the discussions in there an
the area of sesma/ abuse alone.
Let me recall for my ea/leagues some
of the testimony from that report. An
elderly woman with cerebra/ palsy re-
lated her experiences in five different
nursing homes in which she lived. In
one of those experiences she was
abused sexually by her doctor. At that
time her speech was as severely im-
paired that she could not relate this
experience to her nurses.
A daughter wrote from California re-
garding treatment of her aged mother
in. a convalescent hospitak The hospi-
tal personnel would tie her mother in
a chair and leave her in a crowded
room for long periods a time. No at-
tempt was. made to treat a bad eye in-
fection. Her mother was beaten up
while a patient. When questioned by
the daughter, the head nurse said.
"We really don't know what hap-
pened."
Mr. Chairman, elder abuse is hap-
pening and what we are talking about
here today could have a direct impact
on curbing- such abuse. Before we get
into some kind of a rampage to auto-
matically ban the use of polygraphs
for everybody but national security,
we must somehow or another take into
consideration the very threats to those
least able to protect themselves, our
elderly population in this country.
Second, I want to point out that 41
States in this country have some kind
of legislation regarding the we of the
polygraph today. AN SO States, all SO
States, have. regulation of their nurs-
ing home indu.stry. Are we going to at
the Federal level say no matter what.
you are trying to do to regulate yew
nursing homes, you cannot in any way
try to protect the residents of that
nursing home by making sure that the
people that are hired as the staff and
the employees of that nursing home
do not have previous records of sexual
abuse of elder people.. Where are our
consciences?
This amendment ought to be accept-
ed. There should not have been a
debate, and if there in a. rolleall I ask
everyone to vote for it in a unanimous
fashion.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment. offered lay the gentle-
man from Florida Mr. YOUNS.I.
The question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that the nom
appeared to have it.
RECORDED WIWI
Mr. YOUNG of 191orkia. Mr. Chair-
man. I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote wan ordered..
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were?ayes 1St noes
237. not voting S. as ftdlowa
Mall Pia 40711
AYES?IS?
Hammerschmidt Oxley
Nensen Perekard
Anderson
Archer
Ammar
Bedlam
Baker
Balemger
Hamad
Bartlett
Barton
Batsmen
Bennett
Bentley
Bereuter
Beall
Binraida
Boggs
Boater
Brooniffekl
Hinshaw
Bunning
Burton
Byron
Callahan
Chandler
Chapman
Chappell
Cheney
Clarke
Coats
Coble
Coleman (MO)
Combest
Courter
Craig
Dania
Dannemeyer
Darden
Daub
de IS Gases
Delay
DeWine
Dickinson
DioGuardi
Daman (CA)
Dreier
Edwards (OK)
Emerson
Erdreich
Parnell
Fields
Flippo
Premed
Gangly
Gallo
Garcia
Gekais
Gingrich
Goodling
Gradison
Grant
Gunderson
Hall (OR)
Halt fTX)
Ackerman
Altaka,
Alexander
Andrew&
Annunzio
Anthony
Applegate
Aspier
Atari*
AuCoin
Bates
Heileman
Bilkra
Beams
Boeblert
Boland
Honker
Boehm
Bosski
Bosom
Bomber
Boner
Brennen.
Brooks
Browns (CA)
Bruce
Enna
ILsatert
Hatcher
Hader (LA)
Hefter
Hefner
Herger
Illier
Boebbrinekner
Hollows;
ITopkais
Ifoeicabr
Renter
Radio
Hyde
Inhofe
beimed
Jenkins
Jones (NC)
Jones (TN)
Kaden
Kane
Konnytt
Kyl
Imensonsino
Laermater
Latta
Leath (TX)
Lent
Lewin (CA)
Lewin (MI
Lightfoot
Livingston
Lloyd
Lott
Lowery (CA)
Lubin
Lamm Donald
Lungrest
Mack
MacKay
Madigan
)ariana.
Martin (ILI
hfartin (NY)
McCandless
MeCediunt
McEwen
McGrath
McMillan (NC)
Meyers
Mica.
Michel
Miller (OH)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morrison (WA)
Myers
Behan
Nichols
Ortiz
NOES-237
Bryant
Bustamante
Campbell
Camas
Carper
Carr
Clay-
Caner
Coelho
Coleman (TXI
Cbllins
Conte
Comae
Conger
Chug/din.
Corm.
Crockett,
Delia tlig
Davie (MD
DePtodo
Damns
Derrick
Dicks
Dingell
Damn
Donnelly
Parris
Pastimes
Pepper
Pfekett
Pante
Porter
Qufilem
Rennet
Ray
Regain
Rhodes
Roberts
Rows
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Itaminnd MA)
Saki
Saxton
Sehaefer
Stasette
&hone
Senaenbrenner
Shaw
shinnwar
Shuster
Snaky
Skeen
Sitiugliter (VA)
Smith OR)
Smith (11.1)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Denny
(OR)
Smith, Robert
(NH)
Smith, Robert
(OR)
84101111111
Spence
Rangeland
Stenholn
Stump
Sundquist
Sweeney
Swindell
Yuan
Takylor
Thomas (CA)
Thanes (GA)
Terriceibl
Vaiernine
Vander Tagt
lrecanovich
Walker
Wititteges
Wolf
Afortter
Wale
Young (FL)
Dorgan (ND)
Dowdy
Downey
Durbin
Dwyer
Dynially
Dyson
Early
Edina
Edward& (CA)
English
Espy
Enna
Fazio
Pagftert
Fish
rokiise
Florio
Poldietta
Rem
Ford IMO
Peed TB)
Frank
Fleet.
Gaydos
Gejelermen rrenles
Gibbons Masan
Gilman McCloskey
Glickman McCurdy
Gonzalez McDade
Gordon McHugh
Grandy MeMilims ORM
Gray (IL) Mom
Grar CPA) Miller (CA)
Green Millar (WA)
Gregg Mineta
Guerin! idoekbey
Hamilton. Mollohan
Hawkins Moody
Hayes (IL) Morelia
Henry Morrison (CT)
Hostel Mama
Horton Murphy
Houghton Murtha.
Howard Nagle
Hoyer Hatcher
Hubbard Rea
Hughes Nielson
Jambs Eineak
Jeffords Oskar
Johan= (CT) ?benne
Johnson (SD) Obey
Jontz Olin
Kanforski Owens (NY)
Kaptur Panetta
Kantemiteler Patterson
Kennedy Pane
Kennelly Pekin
Kildee Pamir
Kleczka Perkins
Koller Petri
Kosininyer Price (IL)
Lattice Pries (EC)
Lantos, Purnell
Leach (IA) Rebell
Lehnum (CA) *angel
Lehman (FL) Richardson
Leland Ridge
Levin (Mi) Rinaldo
Levine (CA) Ritter
Lewis (GA) Robinson
Lipinski Rodin?
Lowry (WA) Roe
Luken. Thomas Rostannwski
Manton Rowland (CT)
Markey Raybal
Martinez Russo
Matsui Sabo
Biaggi
Brown (CO)
Crane
H 9559
Seism
Sawyes
Schauer
Schneider
&Moeda
Schumer
Sharp
Shays
Eatonlitt
awes,
Skelton
SlatterY
Slaughter (NY)
Smith (FL)
Smith (FAY
&none
Soars
SPratt
St. Germain
Staggers
Ntidlings
Stara
Stokes
swift
alma
Tains
Teske
Torres
Towns
Traffennt
Maxim
thisit
Wien
Vent*
Visclosky
reamer
Wagren
Watkins
Waxman
Weber
Weiss
Weldon
Wheat.
Whitten
Wilma
Wise
Wolpe
W9den
Yates
Vation
Yuma (AK)
NOT vOTING-11
Duncan
Gephardt
Kamp
Owens OJT/
Reentrer
titration
0 1420
Mr. WELDON changed his vote
from "aye" to "no."
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was an-
nounced as above recorded.
AMENDMENT OFFS/MD BY RMS. Itanglialt
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, /
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as foltows:
Amendment offered by Wink ROSKSMA
Page 8, after line 13, insert the following
new subsection:
(d) EXIMPTION FOR SECUSITY Sonnets.?
(l) Subject to paragraph (3), this Act shall
not prohibit the use of a lie detector test on
employees or prospective emirates of a Pri-
vate employer whose primary business pur-
pose consists of prelidildg anacord ear per-
sonnel, personnel enyaged in the design, in-
stallation, and maintenance of security
alarm ayskems, or other todfonned or plain-
clothes security personnel and whose tune-
tion includes Protection 01?
(A) facilities, materials, or operations
having a significant impact on the health or
safety of any State or political subdivision
thereof, or the national security of the
United States, so determined under rules
and regulations issued by the Secretary
within 80 days after the date of the enact-
ment at this 'et, '?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9560
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE November 4, 1987
(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 or property.
(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 detec-
tor 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 reeferred to
in paragraph (1).
Mrs. ROTJKEMA (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 the gentlewoman
from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr, Chairman, I
hope that as we consider this amend-
ment there will be less heat and more
light on the subject.
This is the same one which was
passed by the House last year and
which the gentleman from Montana
[Mr. WILLIAMS] accepted last year. He
stated then that "it is very necessary
? ? ? to establish symmetry between
what we allow in the public sector
? ? ? and what we allow in the private
sector." And that it "establishes some
symmetry with what the FBI, the
CIA, and the National Security
Agency are allowed to do."
The amendment applies to firms
whose primary business is to furnish
protective security services for sensi-
tive facilities affecting the public
health and welfare and valuable items
and documents. In other words, pri-
vate firms which perform a policing
function of protection of certain types
of property and facilities would have
the same ability to use the polygraph
as public police forces.
This amendment would include ar-
mored car, uniformed and plainclothes
guards and security alarm companies.
It would allow the administration of
polygraphs to those who guard such
facilities as nuclear powerplants,
public water supplies, and public
transportation, such as airports. I
cannot overstate the need for airport
security. There would be devastating
results to the public if just one terror-
ist infiltrated such facilities.
Let me give you just one example of
the need for this amendment. The ar-
mored car industry transports, counts
and stores over $15 billion per day.
The majority of the monetarY losses
in the industry-65 percent?result
from internal theft. Furthermore, em-
ployees in the industry are frequently
required to carry guns. Employers nec-
essarily have a great concern for inves-
tigating those they employ in such
sensitive positions, both to protect
their customer's property and to pro-
tect the public.
To address concerns that the exemp-
tion not be so broad as to cover low
priority security functions, there is an
important limitation. The administra-
tion of polygraphs is only allowed
when employees are engaged in the
protection of currency, negotiable se-
curities, 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.
Finally, the amendment contains a
safeguard for employees who are
tested. They may not be denied em-
ployment, discharged, or disciplined
solely on the basis of the results of a
polygraph test. An employer would
have to have additional corroborating
information before taking any of these
actions.
The amendment specifically states
that more restrictive state or local law
or collective bargaining agreements
limiting polygraph use are not pre-
empted.
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, the amendment contains a
safeguard for employees who are
tested. They may not be denied em-
ployment, discharged, or disciplined
solely on the basis of the results of a
polygraph test. An employer would
have to have additional corroborating
information before taking any of these
actions.
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 public that we must
provide special consideration. The
sponsors of the bill already recognize
that a balancing test between individ-
ual interests and the public interest is
sometimes needed because exemptions
are included for all State, local, and
Federal Government employers and
for defense and FBI contractors. The
private security industry has a similar
compelling need for access to the poly-
graph.
I urge you toaupport this important
common sense public safety exemp-
tion, as did the House last year.
El 1435
Mr. SKELTON. Mt Chairman, I approach
the subject?in favor of the original bill and
against the substitute?with trepidation. A
number of years ago, I had the opportunity to
serve as the Lafayette County prosecuting at-
torney back home in Missouri, and on several
occasions, 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 experi-
ences that I had, there were cases in which
the findings were, at best, inconclusive. On
two occasions I had good reason to believe
that people beat the test. The fact of the
matter is these tests are far from reliable and
polygraphs are no better than the person who
gives them.
We are fortunate to have in my home
county a sheriff who has served on the force
for some 27 years, and I think no one would
question his ability. But, compare this gentle-
man, Sheriff Gene Damell of Lafayette
County, with someone who has had only 6
weeks of training and is a certified polygraph
tester and I think that there would be a great
deal of difference between the two.
In all truthfulness I have some serious prob-
lems with this issue, and because of my past
experiences, I am driven irresistibly in favor of
the bill.
Mr. SLA'rELAY. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word, and I rise
in support of the Roukema amend-
ment.
Mr. Chairman, we all agree that the
polygraph can be and has been
abused. There is no question that
some people have been wrongfully
denied employment or fired on the
basis of a faulty polygraph examina-
tion. There can be no doubt that this
legislation will sharply reduce the use
of the polygraph in the workplace.
This legislation will not eliminate
the use of the polygraph. But, we are
deciding where and when the use of
the polygraph is justified. The Educa-
tion and Labor Committee has already
determined that for purposes of na-
tional security and law enforcement,
some useful information can be gained
from polygraph examinations.
Private security companies are often
hired to fulfill functions of equal im-
portance, especially in the area of
public safety.
The Roukema amendment provides
a narrow, well defined exemption from
the provisions of H.R. 1212. Only pro-
fessional security services could use
polygraphs and only for employees
who are assigned to protect:
Electric or nuclear powerplants;
Radioactive or toxic waste;
Public water supplies;
Public transportation; or
Currency, negotiable securities and
other precious materials.
In these instances, the overriding
concern must be for the protection of
the public and the preservation of
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
losses of currency or other precious
items.
The Roukema amendment recog-
nizes that the polygraph does not and
cannot replace appropriate back-
ground checks on prospective employ-
ees. The results of a polygraph test
could not be used as the sole basis
under which an employee or prospec-
tive employee is dismissed, disciplined,
or denied employment.
The polygraph is far from a perfect
tool. But, I believe that in a limited
number of instances, under the direc-
tion of a qualified examiner, the poly-
graph can be a useful tool.
In this case, I believe that we must
put the public safety first. I urge a
"yes" vote on the Roukema amend-
ment.
Mr. SUNDQUIST. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
the amendment offered by the gentle-
woman from New Jersey [Mrs. Rotrics-
ms] to exempt the private security in-
dustry from the restrictions placed
upon the use of the polygraph in the
pending legislation.
I think it is important, Mr. Chair-
man, as we take up this critical bill,
that we have the good sense to make
exceptions. I think it is important to
recognize that we cannot make broad
rules, that we cannot just get the
steamroller going and say, "The public
be damned."
This amendment is necessary to pro-
tect the private security industry, and
I commend the gentlewoman from
New Jersey [Mrs. ROUKEMA] for offer-
ing her amendment. It is necessary for
consumers of private security, and I
think it is critical for the general
public safety.
Mr. Chairman, Government security
agencies, such as the CIA and the FBI,
as has been explained previously, have
the option to use polygraph tests. Pri-
vate security is an extension of Gov-
ernment security, and this is true par-
ticularly when security personnel pro-
tects companies doing contract work
for the Government.
Mr. Chairman, it is only consistent
with current policy that private com-
panies be given the same polygraph
exemptions as Government security.
To do less does not make any sense.
The polygraph test is a useful tool. It
Is a deterrent, it is a protector. This
test, or even better said, the threat of
this test effectively deters criminally
minded individuals from abusing sensi-
tive security positions. This test also
protects the innocent, and that is tin-
portant to consider. It protects the in-
nocent in cases where integrity is ques-
tioned.
Security exists to protect the safety
of the public. The general public is at
danger if this amendment does not
pass. The Roukema amendment en-
sures against terrorist or psychopathic
takeovers of vulnerable public installa-
tions such as airports and water facili-
ties.
Each and every one of us is affected
by private security. We are affected
when we go to a football game, when
we go to the airport, when next
summer we go to the conventions of
the Democratic and the Republican
Parties, when we go to the hospital,
when we go to the grocery stores, or
when we go to banks or any public
places, and as has been mentioned pre-
viously, we in the House allow the use
of the polygraph here at the Capitol.
Yet we are going to say to the private
sector, "You can't use this same tool
while we in the House of Representa-
tives allow it to be used for our protec-
tion."
The largest independently owned se-
curity company in America is head-
quartered in Memphis?Guardsmark,
Inc. Its employees range from
security guards at industrial plants to
highly sophisticated security experts in-
side sensitive industries where there is
no room for error. Think for a moment
about the damage that could be done.
We have read in the papers about prob-
lems in recent times. Think for a mo-
ment about the damage that could be
done by the wrong person doing baggage
screening. Think for a moment about
the misconduct, as was recently report-
ed, among security guards at a nuclear
powerplant. If this amendment does not
pass, we face that problem.
Finally, let us bear in mind that the
results from this test cannot be used
as the sole factor of an employment
decision.
In a company that I am familiar
with, Mr. Chairman, when they have
been doing their interviewing and the
prospective employee was given a list
of the questions that were to be asked
on the polygraph, over 65 percent of
the people who were discovered to be
guilty of filling out that employment
application wrongly admitted to that
offense prior to the polygraph test
being administered. In other words,
almost two-thirds of the people who
were not telling the truth admitted
prior to the test that they had filled
out the application wrongly.
Are we going to deprive the private
security industry of that tool? Good
security can only exist with rigorous
standards. I would urge my colleagues
to support this amendment to guaran-
tee effective security performance by
private security companies.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to
support the amendment to guarantee
good security for sensitive businesses
and to support it for the safety and
welfare of the general public.
Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the
amendment.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BIAGGI. I am glad to yield to
the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
Mrs. ROUICEMA. Mr. Chairman, I
want to thank the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Bisooil for the won-
H 9561
derful support he has given to this
amendment, both last year in commit-
tee and on the floor, and now this
year. I appreciate the leadership he
has shown on this issue.
Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
She is very kind. I was just about to
say that I am very proud to join the
distinguished gentlewoman from New
Jersey in offering this important
amendment to permit certain seg-
ments of the private security industry
to continue to use the polygraph test.
I want to commend Mrs. ROIIKEMA for
the effective leadership she has dem-
onstrated on this important issue.
Mr. Chairman, this is the same
amendment that we offered last year
on the House floor. It was adopted
then by voice vote, and I would sug-
gest to my colleagues that it deserves
your overwhelming support once
again. Simply put, it recognizes the
highly sensitive nature of the security
industry, while providing a number of
carefully crafted and very important
labor protections. Let me stress to my
colleagues that, as a strong supporter
of labor, I would not be endorsing this
amendment if it did not protect the
rights of labor.
As a 23-year police veteran, I believe
there are certain very specific situa-
tions where the polygraph can and
should be used to help prevent crimes,
and to detect criminals once a crime
has been committed. This is clearly
one of those times.
This amendment would allow a pri-
vate employer to use the polygraph
for prehiring and posthiring purposes,
but only in those cases where employ-
ees would be responsible for high pri-
ority security functions. The bill de-
fines these jobs as those that have a
significant impact on the health or
safety of any State or local govern-
ment, as well as those jobs that impact
on national security. The only other
security personnel who would be eligi-
ble for the polygraph test under this
amendment would be those responsi-
ble for protecting public utilities, haz-
ardous materials shipments, public
transportation, currency, negotiable
securities, precious commodities, or
proprietary information from terrorist
or other criminal threats. I want to
emphasize that this amendment does
not provide a blanket prohibition for
the entire private security industry. It
deals strictly with terrorism and other
highly dangerous security risks. Noth-
ing more.
Certainly, a crime in any of these
areas could have devastating conse-
quences. That is why the private secu-
rity industry deserves the same special
consideration already 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. And, that's why this amendment,
unlike some of the others to be of-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
11 9562
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE November 4 1987
fered, is totally consistent with what's
already in the bill.
Let me offer a perfect illustration of
whY tide amendment is so important.
In 1983, a member of a Puerto Rican
terrorist group robbed a Wells Fargo
armored ear depot of $1
second largest theft in U.B. history.
Why is that incident so important to
today's debate? Became that Puerto
Rican terrorist was a Wells Fargo se-
curity guard. Unfortunately, he was
hired in Connecticut. a State that does
not allow polygraph testing. Based on
his employment profile, this terrorist
was going to make a fine security
guard and was entrusted with guard-
ing minks* of dollars. Only the poly-
graph test could have determined hia
true criminal intent. In this case, a
group of violent terrorists ended up
with $7 million in stolen money to
fund death and destruction. Simply
put, we need to fight terrorism with
all the tools at our disposal, and the
polygraph test Is one of those impor-
tant tools.
As stated previously, the amendment
contains, a number of very important
labor protections. For example, it
would, not preclude existing State and
local law, or any negotiated collective-
bargaioing agreement, which limit or
prohibit the use of Ito detector tests;
and it guarantees that the analysis of
lie detector charts will not be used as
the sole basis for denying employment
or promotion. The Department of
Labor would be required to ensure
that. these provisions are effectively
enforced and that the rights of the
employee under these provisions are
fully protected.
H.R. 1213 seeks to prevent employ-
ment discrimination based on the irre-
sponsible use of the polygraph test by
private employers. I hilly support that
worthy objective and am an original
cosponsor of this bill I know that too
much of the private sector does abuse
and overuse the polygraph to the det-
riment of our Nation's labor force.
However, the same carmot be said
about the private security services in-
dustry. In fact, evidence we heard pre-
sented before the Education and
Labor Committee has convinced me
that the polygraph test is an impor-
tant &adenine tool that is selectively
and responsibly used by the private se-
rarity services 'ministry.
Mr. Chairmms, for anyone interested
In fighting terrorism and other serious
crime, this is a good amendment. For
anyone interested hi protecting the
rights of labor, this is a good amend-
ment. And, for anyone interested in
protecting the security interests- of our
Nation, as well as the personal safety
and property of American citizens,
this is a good amendment.
I strongly urge its. approval.
1450
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairmaux I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I !tr. Chairman. I want to state that
we will get into the same debate that
we got into in the past over the fact
that some Members believe that this is
the save-all of all the probnms of in-
dustrif, that by,palygrapbing employ-
ees prior to hiring that we are going to
weed out the people that would perpe-
trate any wrongdoing while in your
employ
The truth of the matter is, it is not,
because it does not take into consider-
ation the conditions at the time when
that person would perpetrate, for
whatever reason.
I doubt very much that it would do
anything other than allow people to
mistier this devise for discrimination.
I was Interested in the comments of
the gentleman from 'Vermont about
being on C-SPAN and getting a call
from a person who was a polygrapher
for law enforcement, and where the
gentleman described taking a number
of applicants, screening them down to
four that he knew of the myriad of ap-
plicants he got that were honest.
In my city the individual doing the
polygraph, after receiving an educa-
tion in PolYgraPhing from one of the
finest sehoola back here in the East,
used this to discriminate against em-
ployees.
It was determined after an investiga-
tion of his activities as a polygrapher
that the applicants that were being
denied were those of Hispanic descent,
and that was the only basis on which
he was using the polygraph for evalu-
ating these people coming under those
applications.
There is a lot of area for abuse, and
the one thing that moat be kept in
ndnd, when we talk about protecting
people's rights, we have to understand
that we are trying to protect the em-
ployees' right & or people that are ap-
plying for Jobs and their rights; and
there is no way that anybody can
really justifiably make the argument
that it is going to protect their rights.
They are "debars of the failure
factor of this roar.hine and process,
and it will not protect the* rights. It
gives the ability of the bias. of the po-
lygrapher an opportunity to manipu-
late a situation to his like or dislike,
and for that reason I do not think it
should be used for anything more
than incident-specific-after a situation
has occurred, and only as a part of a
total investigation, and where there is
some deterndnaticm. some direction
they can go with that haveStintion,
something they gather from that, so
that they might bring to the front the
hard evidence that actually deter-
mines whether this person is guilty or
innocent.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield,
Mr. MARTINEZ. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Tams.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
I want to bronze what the gentle-
man meant. Did the gentleman mean
to say that the gentleman would then
support an incident-specific exception,
se that the polygraph could be used if
there was a specific indiddent. because
an amendment wag be offered later by
the gesstlenian from Wisconsin (Mr.
Gwoontooral for incident-specific test-
ing?
Mr. MARTINEZ. As the gentleman
read from the bill earlier, the bill pro-
vides for the use only as a part of a
total investigation.
I supported that portion of the bill
and offered that as an intendment in
committee which indicates my support
for the use in specific Incidents.
Mr. BARTLETT. If the gentleman
would further yield, because I On
trying to clarify for the House, the bill
as currently drafted coming out of
committee, H.R. Z212, as! read it does
not provide for any Use of polygraphs,
except by a Government agency, and
does not provide for an tnetdent-specif-
ic test.
I respect the gentleman saying that
he would support an incident-specific
use.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.
Mr. BARTLETT. I would comment
to the gentleman that. later in the
debate, probably way towards the end,
the gentleman from Wissonsin
GUMIGIRSON1 will have a very specific
amendment that. will permit incident-
specific testing or postoombryment;
and I would commend that Or the gen-
tleman from California.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman. I doubt thst I will
COMBUIlle my full 5 minutes. The
debate seems to be going along the
lines of those who are voting against
this particular amendment, those
speaking against it, those that have
voted already. Unfortunat,ely, the ma-
jority has voted on the woof side of
the amendment of the gentleman
from Florida' [Mr. Yeanss], which was
a very good amendment.
In landing at titbit as to the object of
what we are talkie* about., you are
looking at the rigida of the employee
and what the rights of the employer
should be. One cannot look only that
far.
We have to look to the general
public, to the good- of the entire com-
munity. We have to look to what are
the rights of those that live near an
atomic plant to know that those em-
ployees who are in charge of the secu-
rity of that atomic pima have gone
through every bit of screening that
they coukt possibly be subjected to.
We are talking about when someone
entrusts his money to a carrier, that
those employees have been screened in
every way pcesible. Yea there is going
to be abuses. Yea there will be abuses.
There rat ease cited for discrimina-
tion by the gentlemen from Califbnzia.
We cannot legislate to address the
worst among as. hat we mint always
address the right* Of the safety of ba-
dividuals.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 9563
In my district office we are protected
by private security firms. I want to
know that my people working in my
office, and my constituents who are
coming in, my elderly who are visiting
their Social Security offices, which are
also in that Federal building, I want to
know that they are being protected.
This is a most important amend-
ment, and I compliment the gentle-
woman from New Jersey for having of-
fered it.
It is very fair and very narrow, and
we are not talking about doing great
harm to this legislation, even though I
feel very strongly that the legislation
Itself is ill-advised.
Mrs. ROTTKEMA. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentle-
woman from New Jersey.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
The gentleman from Florida has
made an excellent point here. The
gentleman referred to the fact that
this amendment is carefully drawn.
The gentleman asked the question,
are we going to say we do not want the
best possible people properly screened
to guard nuclear powerplants? Do we
not want properly screened personnel
protecting water supplies?
Can you believe the deleterious ef-
fects of some person getting at a
public water supply? That is not
beyond one person's imagination.
Included also in this amendment are
those persons that are involved in the
shipment and storage of radioactive or
other toxic waste materials.
The gentlemen and I know how we
have worked so hard on legislation in
this Congress to protect the radioac-
tive and toxic wastes. We know what
emotions break out in communities if
there is any hint of a toxic waste prob-
lem.
Can you imagine what the American
public's reaction is going to be to learn
that we cannot even give employers
the right to use a polygraph as one
tool in screening the employees that
have responsibility for toxic wastes
and radioactive wastes?
I thank the gentleman for the gen-
tleman's contribution.
Mr. SHAW. The gentlewoman from
New Jersey is making some wonderful
points.
The gentlewoman is trying to cor-
rect something by this particular
amendment. What this bill does in its
present form, it does not create rights.
We cannot create rights.
We can merely redistribute them.
Sometimes they need to be redistribut-
ed; but in this instance, one is talking
about the water supply or an atomic
plant, the rights are being taken away
from the consumer and the general
public, simply to protect the rights
which have in very minor instances
been abused of the employee.
This one is wrong. I hope that the
Members of the House will vote yes
for the amendment of the gentlewom-
an from New Jersey [Mrs. RouxElul.
It is a most important amendment.
Mr. VALENTINE. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I do not suppose
there is much that I can add to this
discussion that would not repeat or, I
hope, underscore some of the argu-
ments that have been made previous-
ly.
I rise in strong support of this
amendment, Mr. Chairman.
0 1505
I rise to express to my colleagues a
grave concern which I have concerning
this proposed legislation and a lot of
other matters which have come before
the U.S. House of Representatives in
the 5 years that I have been privileged
to serve here.
Do we really believe that American
business does not understand what we
are about, what some elements here
are about as we here in this legislation
say to them that we do not have
enough confidence in you to entrust
into your hands an instrumentality, a
mechanism, a machine, which is okay
for us to use in the Federal Govern-
ment? We can use it all we want to.
We passed legislation recently which
says in no uncertain terms that the
U.S. Government is free to use a poly-
graph or lie detector in many different
sets of circumstances, yet we have
elected to say to American business
here today that we do not think you
gentlemen collectively have got
enough sense to use it.
We say to the young proprietor or
old proprietor of a jewelry store that
If he has a handful of diamonds that
are missing, you know, you could put
him into bankruptcy by the wealth
that you could hold in one hand, that
this instrumentality which some say is
faulty and is an instrument of the
devil, he can not use it, but Uncle Sam
can use it all he wants to.
One final comment. I have great re-
spect for all the gentlemen who have
testified here and for those who spon-
sored this legislation. They are my
friends, I hope, but it is strange to me,
maybe some of the rest of you under-
stand this, but it is strange to me that
the sponsors of this legislation could
stand up here and tell us what a sorry
useless unreliable contraption this is,
but say that not only can the Govern-
ment use it, but with the legislation
that came up for consideration in
1986, and I hold in my hand a copy of
the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, they ac-
cepted, after having cursed this device
so vehemently, they accepted an
amendment which permitted the use
of polygraph examinations for current
and prospective employees in the
pharmaceutical industry, for example.
They accepted the use of polygraph
examinations for employees who work
as security personnel protecting facili-
ties. They accepted an amendment
which permitted the use of polygraph
examinations for employees at public
utilities and they accepted the amend-
ment which was voted down by this
body a few minutes ago.
Now what does all this mean? What
are the folks back home looking at me
and looking at the rest of us, what are
they to make of that? We come here
and say that this dastardly contrap-
tion, that you can not use it in Ameri-
can business, with certain exceptions,
but that we in the Government can
use it all we want to.
I suggest that we ought to give this
more serious consideration, Mr. Chair-
man. We ought to support this amend-
ment and the other amendments
which seek to liberalize this legislation
and then defeat the legislation and
adopt the substitute which gives us
some reasonable, meaningful, sensible
relief.
Mr. Chairman, although It is clear that H.R.
1212 has widespread support. I hope my col-
leagues will reconsider their positions on the
bill and on the Young-Darden substitute.
As I stated last year during House consider-
ation of a similar bill, if polygraphs are so un-
reliable, so wrong, and if their use violates in-
dividual rights, then their use should be made
unlawful in all situations and by all citizens. In-
stead, H.R. 1212 will exempt large numbers of
Government employees as well as certain pri-
vate consultants, contractors, and employees
of contractors doing business with the Federal
Government.
So far this year, the House has given over-
whelming approval to a randon counterintelli-
gence polygraph program at the Department
of Defense, and to a similar polygraph pro-
gram for diplomatic and embassy security per-
sonnel as a part of the State Department au-
thorization bill that passed the House unani-
mously. If the use of polygraphs is acceptable
in these situations, then I believe private in-
dustry should be allowed to utilize polygraphs
under certain conditions and with strong safe-
guards as a security tool.
On the other hand, if polygraphs are unreli-
able, why should we use them to test those
who are entrusted with our most sensitive se-
crets? Are they unreliable in detecting shoplift-
ing but all right for espionage? I fail to see the
logic in our position.
The Young-Darden substitute would provide
for the use of polygraphs only under carefully
regulated conditions, with protection for those
taking the tests, and impose standards for test
examiners. This is a much fairer approach
than the blanket prohibition of H.R. 1212.
If the Young-Darden substitute is voted
down and H.R. 1212 is passed without ex-
empting amendments, then the House will be
saying to the American people that it is per-
fectly all right, even commendable, for Gov-
ernment to use polygraphs but that the private
sector must not touch them.
Do we really want to administer this slap in
the face to the private sector? Think about it.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. BARTLETT asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I
rise to speak in favor of this amend-
ment. In speaking in favor of the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9564
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE November 4, 1987
amendment I want to call to the atten-
tion of the House that this is a differ-
ent issue and a different amendment
than the issues we have been debating
all day; that is to say that the gentle-
woman from New Jersey has con-
structed a very narrow amendment
that should have been seceepted by
the sponsors of the legislation.
Now, there is a fundamental dis-
agreement within this body about the
need to eliminate the use of the pay-
graph as a whole, and we all under-
stand that and from the last vote it is
apparent that at least a majority so
far in the debate would choose to do
that and a minority would not choose
to do that; but the gentlewoman from
New Jersey (Mrs. Rosinereal is offer-
ing an amendment that those who
favor the bill can and ought to vote
for. I have gotten a copy of the
amendment and I want to walk
through it, describing for the House
how narrow this amendment is. The
Roukenta amendment would set out to
protect the public from some rather
serious and dangerous instances of po-
tential abuse without permitting any
abuse whatsoever of the polygraph of
those potential employees.
Now, the amendment is narrow. The
gentlewoman. has very eTplicitly draft-
ed the amendment so that it permits,,
or does not prohibit the use of a poly-
graph on employees by a private em-
ployer only if that private employer is
an employer whose business consists
of providing armored car personnel,
personnel engaged in the design, in-
stallation, and maintenance of securi-
ty alarm systems, or other uniformed
or plainclothes security personnel and
whose function includes the direct
protection of the public in specific
ways, including only?and it is a limit-
ed list--including only the health or
safety of any State or political subdivi-
sion and, if that involves the transmis-
sion or distribution of nuclear power
or electric power, public water supply
facilities, shipments, or storage of ra-
dioactive or other toxic waste materi-
als, and public transportation. The
other possibility is the transmittal or
protection of currency- or negotiable
securities or precious commodities or
instruments.
The Roukema amendment?what I
am trying to bring to the attention of
the House is that it is not unlimited. it
is a very narrow amendment that only
applies to armored car personnel and
security personnel involved in those
activities.
Further, the Roukema amendment
says that the result of that polygraph
cannot be used as the sole determi-
nant, and further the results cannot
be used on an employee unless the em-
ployee or prospective employee is em-
ployed directly to protect the facili-
ties, materials, operetieno, or assets
that are set out in the MIL So the
Roukema amendment is drafted so
carefully, it seems to me, as to elimi-
nate all the argtunents that have been
used against amendments in the past.
It is far more narrow than even the
Government exemption that we have
in the rest of the bill.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman,
will the gent/emelt yield?
Mr. BARTLETT. I yield to the gen-
tlewoman from New Jersey.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman from Texas for
his explanation and the stress that he
has put quite properly on the defini-
tion and the limitations of the amend-
ment.
I think the corollary of what the
gentleman has just mid should also be
stressed, which is that there is a pro-
tection carefully devised here in this
amendment against abuse. The poly-
graph cannot under my amendment be
used as the sole vehicle or instrument
for making a determination on em-
ployment, promotion, dismissal, or any
other factor pertaining to the appli-
cant or the employee, and I think that
Is equally important, because one of
the arguments that we hear is that we
are going to somehow be using poly-
graphs as the, sole instnanent to hang
the employee or hand the innocent ap-
plicant. This is not the case and it is
expressly prohibited in my. amend-
ment.
Mr. BARTLETF. Mr. Chairman, the
gentlewoman 13 correct.
Mr. WILLIAM& Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words. I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman the gentlewoman has
attempted to specific/12W draw her
amendment. I think she has probably
done it as well as it could be done;
however, to vote for this, you first
have to believe that the gadget works.
You first have to accept that there is
universal physiological response
shared by all hers, that they all per-
spire about the same rate, their respi-
ration increases when they start lying,
all at about the same rate; the heart
rate increases by a certain amount.
You have to accept that this metal
box can pick out the liars from the
nonliars, and there is no scientific evi-
dence that that is true.
Now, specifically with regard to the
language that the gentlewoman has
drawn, I would say that I do not want
my colleagues to misunderstand this
amendment. It Is limited to just se-
curity guards guarding, for example,
nuclear powerplants. In fact, it is not
limited to just security guards at all. It
also includes the engineer who is
working quietly in the laboratory
trying to develop a new circuit system
to be used for alarm systems or for
electronic fences. Those people if they
want a job, these engineers, could
have to undergo a lie detector test.
This amendment is net just limited
to eertahr security guards who are
guarding airportai. It also includes that
electrician who comes by year house
to install security 10181111, Nat the dee-
trietan is also *chided_ in this amend-
ment.
If a private company hires a Plain-
clothes man to ride era Metro, those
plainclothes men to get a job would
have to undergo a He detector test; se I
say again, it is net limited to security
guards.
You know, we are starting that part
of the process now which I guess we
could call the bettehera bakers and
candlestick makers, antendreenta. I
mean, every hitiostry in the United
States, security guards, the electrical
Industry, plainclothes people, the day
care operators, the =daytime oper-
ators, the bankers; the butchers, the
bakers and the candlestick makers are
all going to come befbre us now with
amendments asking that they be ex-
empted from this MIL
I think it is wrong to. start trying to
pick and choose those industries or
those individuals that We should give
this phony lie detector gadget test to.
So I oppose the gentlewoman's
amendment and I do so knowing that
she made an attempt to craft it care-
fully, but (a) the lie detector does not
work, and (b) it is not crafted all that
carefully. If it only included. if the
amendment only included security
guards and private police and private
protective service people, it would
mean that wise than half a. million
Americans would be subjected to this
gadget for which there Is no scientific
evidence that it works.
Mr. BARTLE'FT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS Yet; I ala ;goosed
to yield to the gentleman from Tema.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr, Chainnatz I
thank the gentlemen for yielding.
Again, to clarify the amendment. the
amendment don not require that ma-
one use a polygraph. but only that the
Federal law not prohibit the use of the
polygraph, just m in the last ansend-
rnent
I do want to call the gentleman's at-
tention to the last paragraph of the
amendment on page 2 beginning on
line la. It iaa. limiting paragraph. It
limits the rest of the amendment, and
I will read it very sleadjr.
The exemption provided under this sub-
section shall not appbrif the test is &Mathis.
tered to an employee or Mops:ties employ-
ee who is not or would sot be mildewed to
protect facilities, materiah, operation.. or
assets referred to in paragraph 0.1.
So in fact the amendment does not
apply to people who are not used to
protect those facilities.. It is orgy those
employeeg who are engaged in the
direct protection of those faciles.
The amendment does net cover mere,
tarns and gardeners and maintenance
workers and peep* ohs raise the flag,
as has been previously discussed.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Montana lam expired.
(By unanimous esseentt Mr. Wn.-
mass was allowed topromed for I. ad-
ditional minute.)
Mr. WILLIAMIL Ms. Claimant I
understand that the gentleman *-pre-
cisely correct I would only read to the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05 : CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05 : CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
gentleman the first paragraph, subsec-
tion (d), which indicates that the lie
detector teat can be used, quoting
from the amendknent now, on employ-
ees or prospective employees of a pri-
vate empioyer whose, primary business
purpose consists of providing armored
car personnel, personnel engaged in
the design, installation, and mainte-
nance of security alarm systems.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman,
will my good friend. the gentleman
from Montana, yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; I am pleased
to yield to, the author of the amend-
ment, the gentlewoman from New
Jersey.
0 /520
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I
believe the gentleman from Montana
(Mr. Wittints/ should read that first
section and that should be understood
in conjunction with the exemption
provided on page 2, section 3, line 12.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Wit-
tman) has expired.
(On the request of Mrs. Rougutat,
and by unanimous consent, Mr. Wri.-
Liana was allowed to proceed for 1 ad- _
ditional minute.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mx. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the gen-
tlewoman from New Jersey.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Section 3 at line
12 on page 2 says. "the exemption pro-
vided under this subsection shall not
apply," and then are two sections. As
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barr-
urn] has said part 13 is the limiting
section. That limits the application to
only those personnel that are directly
involved.
I think the gentleman from Mon-
tana (Mr. Wittman' should remember
that last year we worked together on
the development of this amendment
and we had hoped together to reach
that kind of an agreement that would
be limiting and would be very specific
as to its application.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, re-
claiming my time, finally I again want
to express my and the committee's op-
position to this amendment which
would be the beginning of opening up
this bill, and once the (*ening up of
this legislation starts for security
guards or electricians or the people
who maintain or prepare alarm sys-
tems, there will be no stopping. it.
I urge my colleagues- to vote "no."
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
woman from New Jersey (Mrs. Ronne-
eta
The question was taken; and the
Chairman armennced that the ayes
appeared to have it
Itilettldelli yore
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 210, noes
209, not voting 14, as follows:
Ma NO. 4081
AYES-210)
Anderson Hangar Pastrami)
Andrews, Hastert Petri
Archer Hatcher Pickett
Armee Heyes (LA) Pickle
Sadism Heller Poster
Baker Hefner Price MCI,
Ballenger Herter Quillen
Barnard liner Ravenel
Bartlett Holloway Rai'
Barton Henke Remelt
Batman Horton Rhodes
Bennett Houghton: Richardson
Bentley thickabY Ritter
Bereuter Mobs, Roberts
Bilitakis Hester Roe
Bliley Hutto Rogers
Boater Hyde Rose
Bromfield Inhofe Roth
Butehner /rebind Roultem
lamming Jenkins Rowland 00n)
Burton, Jones (NC) Saki
Byron Jones (110 Saxton
Callahan Kase)) Schaefer
Cardin Kolbe Schemer
Chandler Romeo fielmette
Chapman Kyl Schulze
Chappell Lagontarsino Sensenbrenner
Cheney leacaster Shaw
Clarke Latta Shammy
Coats Lent Shyster
Coble Lewis (CA) Sialsky
Coleman (MO) Lewis (FL) Skeen
Combest Lightfoot Waiter)'
Counter Livingston Shearkter (NY)
Craig Lloyd Slaughter (VA)
Dimiel Lott Smith (NE)
Dammeyer Lowery (CA) Smith (1%7)
Darden Lilian Shunt (TX)
Daub Laken, Thomas Smith. Denny
de la Garza Luken'. Donald. (OR)
Delay Lungren Smith Robert
DeWine Mack (NH)
DiCkillfell Madigan Sinitla Robert
DloGuardi Marlenee (0111
Dornan (CA) Martin (IL) Snow.
Dreier Martin (NY) Solomon
Edwards (OK) Marron Spence
Eniereon McCandless Spratt
English McCollum Staageland
Erdreich areCtudy Stenholln
Finsell McDade. Stump
Melds ?damn Sondquiat
Fish McGrath Sweeney
MP? McMillan (NC) Brendan
Mellen. Meyers . Tauzin
Ford (TN) Mks Taylor
Frenzel Mickel T1101'108 (CA)
GalleglY Miller (OH) Thomas (GA)
Gallo Molinari Torricent
Gekaa Montgomery Unten
Onllrick Moorhead Valentine
Goodling Morrison (WA) Vander Jagt
Madison Murphy Vucanovich
Grant Myers, Whiker
Green Nelson Weber
Gregg Nichols Weldon
Gunderson Nielson Whittaker
Hall (OH) Ortiz Wolf
Hail (TX) Oxley Wortley
Hamilton Packard Wylie
Hammerschnildt Parris Young (FL)
NOES-209
Ackerman Brennan Derrick
Allaka Brooks Darks
Alexander Brace Dingell
Annunzio Bryant Dixon
Anthony Bustamante Donnelly
ApPlegete Campbell Dorgan (ND)
Aspin Caner Dowdy
Atkin' Carr Dwane,
AuCoin Clay Durbin
Bates Clinger Dwyer
Belenson Coelho Dymoily
Hennas Coleman (TX) Dyson
Bevill Conine FAFIY
Bilbray Conte Eckert
Boatilert Conyers Edwards (CA)
Boma Cooper ROW
Boland Coughlin Nam
Bonior Coyne Faseell
Thinker Crockett Patio
Bonk) DaviallL) Pen
Boom Davb (M1) Flake
Boucher DePazio Florio
Boxer Dellums Foley
Ford (MI)
Frank
Frost
Garcia
Gardos
OeMensos
Gibbons
Gilman
Glickman
Gonsales
Gordon
Grandy
Gray (IL)
Gray (PA)
Guarini
Harris
Hawkins
Hayes (IL)
Henry
Hertel
Floehbrueckner
Hoyer
Hubbard
Jacobs
Jenard,'
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Jontz
Kaniorakf
Xasteruneler
Kennedy
Kennedy-
Kildee
Kleezka
Kolter
Kostmayer
LaPaice
Lantos
Lomb (IA)
Lehman. (CA)
Lehman (FL)
Leland
Levin (MI)
Levine (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowry (WA)
Biaggi
Brown (CA)
Brown (CO)
Crane
Duncan
H 9565
MacKay Sabo
Manton Savage
Markey Sawyer
Martinez Schneider
Mated Schroeder
Mavroules' Schumer
McCloskey Sharp
McHugh Shays
MeatillettlID) Sikorski
Mums Skaggs
Miner (CA) Skelton.
Miller (WA) Smith (FL)
MosideY Smith (IA)
Molloitan &lam
Reidy et Germain
Morella Nollggirs
Merinos (CT) Shanings
Mrasek Stark
Murtha Stokes
Nagle Studds
Stitcher SWirt
Neal Synar
Nowak Tallen
Dakar Tauke
Oberater Torres
Obey Towns
Olin Teat leant
Owens (NY) Traxler
Panetta Udall
Patterson Went('
Pease Viscloaky
Pelee Vollmer
Penne Walgren
Penner Watkins.
Perkins Waxman
Price (IL) Weiss
Pitmen Wheat
Rahail Whitten
Rama
Ridge Witmer
Miele" Who
Robinson Wolpe
Rodin? Wyden
Rostenkowski Yates
Rowland (CT) Ystron
Roybal Young (AK)
Russo
NOT VOTING-14
Gephardt Athlete
Haunt Owens (1.1T)
Kaptur Roemer
Kemp Stratton
Leath (TX)
0 1530
The Clerk announced the following
pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Brown of Colorado foe, with Ma
Kaigur against.
Messrs. DERRICK, MOR.RISON of
Connecticut., AtCOIN, HAYES of Illi-
nois, and PANETTA changed their
votes from "aye- to "no."
Messrs. ANDREWS, MOORHE(D,
BE LA GARZA, and FLIPPO changed
their votes from "no" to "aye."
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was an-
nounced as above recorded.
AMENDSZI4T OFFERED ST INISS..ROSKEELA
Mrs. ROLIKEMA. Mr. Chairman. I
offer an amendment.
TheClerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mn. RORKE/NA:
Page a, after line 13, insert the foltowing
new aubsectIon:
(d) Exsairrion roe Psazassix RIIIRLATED
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIOND?(1) Subject to
paragraph (3), this Act shall not prohibit
the use of a lie detector test on employees
or prospective employees of a financial insti-
tution (as defined in section 7(4)).
(7) The exemption provided under pars-
graph (1) shall not diminish an employer's
obligation to comply with?
(A) applicable State and local law, and
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9566 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE November 4, 1987
(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 the results of
an analysis of lie detector charts are used as
the sole basis upon which an employee or
prospective employee is discharged, dis-
missed, disciplined in any manner, or denied
employment or promotion. Nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed to prohibit
the temporary reassignment of any employ-
ee for such period as is necessary for a
speedy and thorough investigation concern-
ing potential criminal activity which in-
volves the operations of the employer.
Page 9, line 2, strike "and".
Page 9, line 5, strike the period at the end
of such line and insert "; and".
Page 9, after line 5, add the following new
paragraph:
(4) the term "financial institution"
means?
(A) an insured bank, as defined in section
3(h) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act
(12 U.S.C. 1813(h));
(B) an insured institution, as defined in
section 408(aX1) of the National Housing
Act (12 U.S.C. 1730a(aX1));
(Cita insured credit union, as defined in
section 101(7) of the Federal Credit Union
Act (12 U.S.C. 1752(7)); or
(D) an exchange, broker, dealer, invest-
ment company, securities information proc-
essor, clearing agency, municipal securities
broker, municipal securities dealer, govern-
ment securities broker, or government secu-
rities dealer, as such terms are defined in
section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)), or an exchange
member subject to section 15(e) of such Act
(15 U.S.C. 78o(e)).
Mrs. ROUICEMA (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 the gentlewoman
from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mrs. ROUICEMA. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment to exempt feder-
ally insured or federally regulated fi-
nancial institutions from the bill's ban
on the use of polygraphs. This amend-
ment has the same logic and common-
sense as the previous exemptions.
As you know, last year the House
very nearly passed an exemption for
financial institutions. The amendment
failed because some felt it was too
broad?it included pawnbrokers, tele-
graph companies, and travel agencies.
I recognize these Members concern
with confining any such exemption to
those institutions which truly have a
compelling need for retaining the use
of the polygraph. Therefore, I empha-
size that I have carefully drafted my
amendment to apply only to federally
Insured banks and financial institu-
tions and stock exchanges and invest-
ment companies regulated pursuant to
the Securities Exchange Act.
American financial institutions
handle an enormous amount of cash
and securities every day, with many
employees?from the lowest clerk to
the highest executive?having access
to these funds. Unfortunately, losses
from internal fraud and embezzlement
are enormous. According to the FBI,
over $1.1 billion was lost by banks, sav-
ings and loans, and credit unions last
year. The sad fact Is that over 80 per-
cent of these losses have been attrib-
uted to employee theft. Employees, in
fact, are responsible for greater losses
than all robberies, burglaries, and lar-
cenies combined. What's worse, these
losses have greatly increased in the
last few years. In 1981, the losses to-
taled less than $200 million; by 1986,
they shot up to over a billion dollars.
With such an alarming trend taking
place, it would be totally irresponsible
for us to prohibit the use of a tool
which helps detect embezzlers, par-
ticularly when you realize that today's
computerized operations make it possi-
ble to divert millions of dollars in an
Instant if the confidentiality of com-
puter codes is compromised.
These are the exact reasons why fi-
nancial institutions are highly regulat-
ed by the Federal Government. Let me
give you some examples of the exten-
sive regulation.
The Bank Protection Act of 1968 re-
quires the establishment of compre-
hensive security programs.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Act
prohibits federally insured banks from
employing anyone convicted of "any
criminal offense involving dishonesty
or a breach of trust" without first ob-
taining the written approval of the
FDIC.
SEC regulations require fingerprint-
ing of securities industry personnel to
help identify people with criminal
records.
Other Federal laws and regulations
require the investigation of suspected
thefts, embezzlements, unexplained
shortages of funds, and so forth. Find-
ings must be reported to the Federal
Reserve, Comptroller of the Currency,
or FDIC. Reports must also be made
to the FBI and other law enforcement
agencies.
I ask you: How can the Federal Gov-
ernment on the one hand place such
stringent duties and requirements on
financial institutions, and on the other
hand prohibit the use of one of the
methods of carrying out these require-
ments?
For these reasons the Chairman of
the Securities and Exchange Commis-
sion has written a letter of support for
this amendment.
For these reasons the Chairman of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corpo-
ration has written a letter of support
for this amendment.
I know many of you are concerned
about the validity of polygraph exams.
You are reluctant to exempt specific
industries because of the basic ques-
tion of whether or not polygraphs are
valid indicators of honesty. I point
out, however, that often in the law we
use a balancing test. We recognize that
the need for something is so great that
we use the best helpful means at our
disposal, even though it may not be
perfect. Such a balancing test has al-
ready been recognized by the sponsors
of this bill because exemptions have
been included for all State, local, and
Federal Government employers and
for defense and FBI contractors. Fi-
nancial institutions similarly have a
compelling need to use the polygraph
in certain situations. With the events
occurring in the stock market in the
last few weeks, this is no time to enact
any laws which could raise the least
doubts about the securities industry or
other financial institutions.
I urge your support.
0 1545
? Mr. WYLIE. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word, and I rise in
support of the amendment.
(Mr. WYLIE asked and was given
permission to revise and extend this
remarks.)
Mr. WYLIE. Mr. Chairman, I am
glad to rise in support of the amend-
ment offered by my colleague from
New Jersey, Mrs. ROZIKEK4. This
amendment which would exempt fi-
nancial institutions from H.R. 1212's
ban on the use of polygraph tests is an
appropriate measure to protect the in-
tegrity of savings, lending, and trading
Institutions that are at the heart of
our economy.
Through membership on the Bank-
ing Committee I have learned that em-
ployees of banks and other securities
houses handle enormous amounts of
cash and other valuable he= each
day and that there an many postdbili-
ties for fraud, embezzlement and
theft. Just a few statistics show the
Scope of the problem.
The FBI estimates that banks, sav-
ings and loan, and credit unions lost
more than $1.1 billion in 1986 through
employee losses from banks, savings
and loan, and credit unions. Losses at-
tributable to employees are greater
than losses caused by robberies, bur-
glaries, and larcenies. In fact, the dif-
ference is overwhelming. Over 80 per-
cent of the losses that these financial
Institutions suffered were the result of
employee theft.
As the gentleman from Kansas men-
tioned a little earlier, we are deciding
here where and when the polygraph
test is appropriate. The ability to use
all available screening and investiga-
tive tools is critical to maintaining se-
curity at financial institutions.
As Mrs. ROIIICZELA mentioned a little
earlier, both the Chairman of the
FDIC, Mr. Seidman and the Chairman
of the SEC, Mr. Ruder, have recog-
nized the importance of employee
theft and have stated their support for
an exemption that would allow finan-
cial institutions to use the polygraph.
We considered and almost passed a
similar amendment last year. The
problem with the amendment that was
offered last year was that it was too
broad; it would have granted exemp-
tions to travel agents and pawn bro-
kers among others. These businesses
are not federally insured and they are
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Noveneber 4,1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? HOUSE H 9567
not federally regulated like banks and
other savings Institutions.
This amendment is much more care-
fully drawn, and narrowly drafted.
There is a Federal nexus here. The
amendment covers only financial insti-
tutions insured under Federal law or
regulated under the Securities and Ex-
change Act
I was once a prosecuting attorney
myself and I can tell you that a poly-
graph test can be useful in helping
solve crime. I believe that use of the
polygraph test can be art important
and proper security measure and can
be used as an ounce of prevention in
these cases. So I enthusiastically sup-
port the amendment and urge an
"aye" vote on the amendment.
Mr. BARNARD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WYLIE. I yield to the gentle-
man from Georgia.
Mr. BARNARD. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
the amendment offered by my col-
league from New Jersey allowing fi-
nancial institutions to continue to uti-
lize polygraph examinations as one
tool in their continued fight against
white collar crime, crime which all too
often pieces a heavy burden on the
safety and soundness of our Nation's
financial institutions when they can
least afford it.
Since 1984, the subcommittee which
chair has held extensive hearings on
friskier abuse and crimirml misconduct
in financial institutions and found
that losses from fraud and other crimi-
nal activities have amounted to bil-
lions of dollars. Many of these losses
occur at smaller institutions which are
the least able to afford them and
which can suffer the greatest impact.
In 1996, over one-third of the 138 bank
failures that ?mired were due to
fraud and embezzlement, according to
FB/ statistics. These losses occur at
the upper management levels and are
not by any means confined to lower
echelon employees. Polygraphs are
needed for all levels of employment in
the financial services industry. In
many of the fraud cases, a polygmpyh
exam would have indicated the need
for further research of a person's
background.
The Roukema amendment is nar-
rowly drawn and consistent with the
exemptions already included in the
bill for various governmental agencies
and private companies that are nation-
al security contractors. No industry
has a higher fiduciary responsibility
than our federally insured financial
institutions. 1 urge my colleagues to
support the amendment and the avail-
ability of polygraphs as one arrow in
the quiver of defenses against criminal
misconduct in our financial services in-
dustry.
Mr. WYLIE. I thank the gentleman
for his contribution.
Financial institutions do occupy a
very special place in our economy.
Banks do have the responsibility to
maintain appropriate security and I
think this very carefully, well-drawn
amendment will help them with that
charge.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-
ance of my time.
Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman,
move to strike the requisite ntnnber of
words and I rise in support of the
amendment
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the
Banking Committee, I support the
gentlewoman from New Jersey's im-
portant amendment to create an ex-
emption for financial institutions such
as banks, savings and loan, and the se-
curity industry. I rise in support of
this measure because the financial in-
stitutions. protected by the amend-
ment are a distinct part of our econo-
my.
Deposits at banks, savings and loan,
and credit unions are insured by the
Federal Government. Losses at these
institutions are therefore costly to the
Federal Government. That is why the
Government imposes: security require-
ments an savings institutions. The se-
curity requirements are strict and ex-
acting. To comply with Federal regula-
tions, a great many savings institu-
tions use the polygraph as one impor-
tant element in their overall security
Program.
Similarly, the securities Industry is
heavily regulated by the Federal Gov-
ernment For instance, securities firms
are prohibited from hiring anyone
who has a felony conviction. There-
fore, securities firms find that the
polygraph is a useful tool in complying
With Federal Law.
In light of the Federal regulatory re-
quirements on financial institutions, it
Is particularly noteworthy that the
heads of the principal regulatory
agencies, the FDIC and the SEC, have
written to the Members of the House
expressing their support for the Rou-
kema amendment to exempt financial
institutions from H.R. 1212.
In the final analysis, for the Govern-
ment to require security programs at
financial institutions, and then take
away those institutions' ability to use
a vital security tool would be nonsensi-
eal. For this reason, I strongly support
the amendment under consideration,
and I urge you to join me.
Mr. MILLER of Washington. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike the requi-
site number of worth.
(Mr. MILLER of Washington asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of Washington. Mr.
Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R.
1212,1 hope that we do not amend this
bill to death.
Let us remember the polygraph ma-
chine does not measure mendacity, it
measures stress. The wikgy misnamed
lie detector cannot detect lies or for
that matter the truth. Yet there are
those who argue that the jobs, reputa-
tions, and integrity of thousands of
truthful Americans workers should
depend on the outcome of these stress
tests.
Mr. Chairman, courts of law in this
country protect ethanol defendants
from taking these tests. Yet there are
those who would compel thousands of
law abiding American workers to
submit to these discredfted proceed-
ings.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, every Ameri-
can enjoys constitutional protection
from self-incrimination and arbitrary
searches and seizures devoid of proba-
ble cause. Yet there are those who
would play with this most basic consti-
tutional right to privacy in order to
use a pseudo technology only slightly
more accurate in assessing truth than
a Ouija board.
I urge my colleagues to support the
passage of H.R. 1212.
Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this entire discussion
today strikes me as pretty ludicrous.
The question is: Do polygraphs, do lie
detectors work or not? They do not
work.
I was an attorney in the real world
for a period of time. Some people here
have had that sane experience.
I was a criminal attorney.! had
people who dealt with things like
murder, arson, drum kidnaping; you
name it, at one time or another I prob-
ably either defended or prosecuted
them in some fashion or another.
The question became time and time
again what happened if they took the
lie detector test?
Let me tell you, the people that took
the lie detector test, those guys, those
people were smooth, they were able to
stand there with steel nerves and lie,
control their breathing. They got
through the thing.
Time and time again I would see the
police drop the case on the outcome of
what happened with that lie detector
test and then they would come back
later and say, "Yeah, I did It.'?
0 1605
What we are talking about with this
entire exercise is a stress test. We are
talking about whether or not you can
handle that stress test or not. We are
not talking about a Me detector test.
That is a misnomer. So this entire ex-
ercise we are going through today is
Just a complete exercise in futility.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PERKINS. I yield to the gentle-
man from Wisconsin.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate my good friend, the gentle-
man from Kentucky, yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I am just curious
about this. If the lie detector never
works, why did the gentleman vote in
the majority when we created a per-
manent polygraph program for nation-
al defense agencies?
Mr. PERKINS. I take no issue at all
with that, and quite frankly, if I voted
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9568
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE November 4, 1987
that way, I made a big mistake. I will
stand here and tell that to the gentle-
man.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield again?
Mr. PERKINS. I will yield further
to the gentleman, and I hope the gen-
tleman extends the same courtesy to
me when my time expires.
Mr. GUNDERSON. I will get more
time for the gentleman.
Mr. PERKINS. All right.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Why did the
gentleman on June 16 of this year vote
with the majority again when an
amendment Was offered by the gentle-
man from Florida [Mr. Mica] dealing
with the Department of State authori-
zation bill to allow the use of the poly-
graph and other means of investiga-
tion for embassy and diplomatic secu-
rity? If this machine is so bad, why did
the gentleman vote for that? Anybody
can make a mistake once, but twice
the gentleman voted for it. Why?
Mr. PERKINS. Let me tell the gen-
tleman that the machine does not
work.
Mr. GUNDERSON. But I ask, why?
Mr. PERKINS The gentleman can
read idiosyncrasies in my record, and I
can say that I make mistakes. But the
fact of the matter is that the machine
does not work. Consistently, when you
look and see the results of the tests,
you will find the machine does not
work.
I saw these clients who would come
in and literally stand there and tell me
they committed the crime, and the
police just did not even bother to con-
tinue afterwards with the investiga-
tions, after they got off, because the
police relied on this test.
This test is an excuse for laziness. It
is an excuse for not investigating and
not paying any attention to the results
and really do some more investigation.
This entire series of amendments, in
my opinion is a farce. The bill is an ex-
cellent bill because it says this is a
farce. We cannot allow this as a divin-
ing rod, and that is what we are talk-
ing bout, a divining rod. That is the
entire situation.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. PERKINS. I am pleased to yield
to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman,
what I hear the gentleman saying is so
evident, if we would really listen to
what we have all said. Nobody has said
that this machine is a perfect machine
other than in measuring nerves and
stress. The problem is that there is
that human factor the gentleman is
talking about.
The gentleman made a mistake in
the way he voted, and he admits it,
but the polygrapher never admits
when he makes a mistake because he
always says the machine said so and
the machine is a perfect tool because
the machine is infallible. But where
the machine may not be infallible in
its readings, he is infallible because he
Is trained to read the results of that,
and most polygraphers do not have
either the training or the background
in psychiatry or anything else to un-
derstand the emotions of the person
they are testing.
This country does not have stand-
ards for polygraphers, and the Darden
amendment would not create those
kinds of standards that require poly-
graphers to be trained or educated and
have the background to do that kind
of a job that needs to be done in evalu-
ating what that person is going
through under the polygraph.
So where you and I are human and
make mistakes and we can admit it,
the polygrapher, because he depends
on that machine, does not do it; is that
not right?
Mr. PERKINS. I am sure that I
agree with my colleague.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say
this in closing because I realize a lot of
Members want to continue in this ex-
ercise in futility.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. PER-
KIN:0 has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Pea-
KINS was allowed to proceed for 2 addi-
tional minutes.)
Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Chairman, this
is, as I say, an exercise in futility. If
we want to impinge on the American
public with a divining rod and go in
and try to take away constitutional
rights based on the flip of a coin, we
can go ahead and do it. We have the
ability to do it by passing these
amendments here today.
But if we want to use legitimate in-
vestigation techniques, we could get
out and do some hard work, we could
get out and find some good evidence as
to whether or not this person should
be hired in a particular industry or not
and find some good evidence as to
whether this person is an individual
we would want working for us or not.
Let us not rely on the flip of a coin.
The machine does not work, and it is
not admitted in any criminal court in
this country. It is ridiculous. I ask the
Members to vote against all these
amendments. Let us pass the bill and
give the American people some protec-
tion here. That is what we need.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the
amendment.
(Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I
have listened to a lot of this debate
and participated in part of it this
afternoon, and I do not think any of
us who advocate some exceptions to
this bill believe that the polygraph is a
perfect machine. We do not believe
that the system is going to be error-
less, and we do not think the way it is
conducted in the cases around the
country today is always right. But the
fact is that it is, by the testimony of
those who are experts in this?at least
a good number of them that I have
read?something that, 80 percent of
the time, 90 or 70 percent of the time,
is right and is accurate, and if you do
have a good polygraph test giver, a
polygraph machine expert, you can
produce results for screening and pre-
screening of employment applications
that will aid, not give a definitive
answer but aid the person making em-
ployment decisions in making that de-
cision.
I think the question is not one of
whether or not we totally do away
with the polygraph examination, but
what areas do we limit it to. That is
what this legislation is all about. What
restrictions do we place on it? What
areas do we Mint it to?
It was already decided when this bill
came forward that the Defense De-
partment and the national security
areas of our country were still going to
be able to use this machine. I think if
this body had determined that this
machine was obsolutely not valuable
in any way, we would not have even
agreed to that. Though some do not
agree with it and there are isolated in-
stances of those speaking today who
do not think We ought to have it at all,
I think the body has made that deci-
sion. The body has also, I think, decid-
ed that there are other eXceptions.
We just did one a few minutes ago.
It was a close vote, but it was some-
thing we decided in the last Congress
and we decided it this time, that in the
case of security guards and armored
personnel guards, those who carry
money and are involved in guarding
private businesses, we ought to screen
those applicants or at least allow the
polygraph to be used by those who
screen applicants and make employ-
ment decisions.
So the issue here is on the amend-
ment offered by the gentlewoman
from New Jersey (Mrs. Rouxicaud as
to whether or not we should give this
same exemption that we just gave to
the security guards to the banks, the
savings and loans, the credit unions,
and some security industry folks. That
is a question of judgment, a question
of balance and reasonableness on
whether or not we want to make this
particular exception. It is not a ques-
tion of whether the polygraph works
or does not work. It is not a question
either of whether or not somebody is
harassed or whether there can be
abuse, because indeed there can be,
and there ought to be restrictions and
limitations and guidelines, maybe
more than those that are here. Many
of us have argued for those, The ques-
tion, though, now that we ought to ad-
dress ourselves, it seems to me, is,
should we grant this exemption to the
banking community, to the financial
services community, as narrowly de-
fined?
I offered an amendment similar to
this a Congress ago. It was broader. It
was defeated by about 10 votes. It
seems to me the complaints made by a
few Members about that ought to
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 9569
bring them aboard, and we ought to
pass this amendment.
The fact is that the money that we
are concerned about being embezzled
or taken away by the push of a button
in this electronic world of banking
today is not the banks' money. It is my
money, it is your money, it is the
money of the constituents of every
Member of this body. We are the
people and our constituents are the
people who deposit our funds in the
banks of this country, in the savings
and loans, in the credit unions, and
with the securities industry people,
and we are the ones as a whole, the
whole public, that have to be worried
that somebody is going to go out and
take this money by the push of a
button somewhere.
I submit to my colleagues that we
have a paramount fidicuiary duty in
this case as Congressmen and Con-
gresswoman to pass this exception to
allow this tool to be one more of a
number used by those in employment,
making decisions in the financial serv-
ices area so they can have the oppor-
tunity of making better decisions on
which 10 out of 100 people who apply
for a banking job are going to be
hired. This will not necessarily be the
deciding criteria, but it ought to be a
tool available if we are going to get
some of this fraud out of the industry.
Let me make one other point. In the
banking world today, unfortunately,
there is another great abuse that some
employees take of our money system,
and we all too well know about this if
we think about if for a minute. That is
in the area of drug trafficking and
money laundering. We passed a major
drug trafficking bill last year, trying
to get at that tremendous problem for
our citizenry. As part of that, we
passed a bill dealing with the new
crime of money laundering. That
cannot possibly be enforced or it
cannot work if we do not have a
system of screening out the people in
the financial services institutions who
might be prone to be involved in the
shady transactions that are involved
in the process of hiding their sources
of crime and money dealing in drugs.
I submit to my colleagues, if we
really want to fight drug trafficking,
we have got to get at it in a number of
ways, and one of the key ways is to
stop money laundering.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCot-
Luml has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. McCot-
tuat was allowed to proceed by 2 addi-
tional minutes.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, if
we are going to be effective in fighting
the war on drugs, it requires that we
have at our disposal not only the law
on the books to make something a
crime but the ability on the part of
those who are managing our financial
institutions to screen out those who
might become employees who would
push those computer buttons around
to aid and abet the criminal element
who would like to pass millions of dol-
lars through our institutions in vari-
ous ways, although we have now
passed laws saying that they should
not. In other words, we are not going
to catch all those people simply be-
cause we have a law on the books. We
have got to have honest people at the
teller window, we have got to have
honest people dealing with the funds,
and its seems to me it makes no sense
to pass a bill like this one and pass an
exception to it that says the guard
who , is transporting the money be-
tween two banks is going to be
exempt, or the employer of that guard
Is exempt, but the teller or the person
at the computer desk or the computer
station may not be someone the em-
ployer has screened as well. That
makes no sense to me at all if we are
going to protect the financial interests
of our citizenry.
Mrs. ROUICEMA. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I am glad to yield
to my colleague, the gentlewoman
from New Jersey.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
I wanted to commend the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. McCouum), a dis-
tinguished member of the Committee
on Banking, Finance and Urban Af-
fairs, and one who worked very hard
on this amendment last year.
The gentleman alluded to a point
that should be stressed for the Mem-
bers, and it is a compelling reason for
passing this amendment. The gentle-
man alluded to the fact that we are
talking about banks that have federal-
ly insured deposits. This is full faith
and credit of the U.S. Government,
and ultimately it may actually back up
to the taxpayers.
This is a compelling reason why this
is a legitimate inclusion in this bill.
Second, the Security Exchange Act
controls here. We have highly regulat-
ed institutions, and they should be
under the provisions of this act and
should be given all the tools they
need.
Mr. McCOLLUM. The gentlewom-
an's amendment to exclude certain
banks, financial institutions, certain
securities outfits needs to be passed, if
we are going to have a truly fair bill to
protect the interests of the American
deposit holder in our banking institu-
tions.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I doubt very much that the banking
Institution is going to change its way
of doing business or reduce any of its
losses that take place because of poly-
graphing employees.
The banking institution has ade-
quate measures now to screen employ-
ees, test employees for employment
there.
I have had family members who
have worked for the banks, and I have
some familiarity with their procedures
for hiring. I do not think they really
need the polygraph. It will not do any-
thing for them.
The kind of abuse that the gentle-
man from Florida is concerned about
is taking place at a higher level, and
where those people are able to make a
decision whether they would use poly-
graphs on that level of employee or
not, and I doubt very much if they
would, if they are going to be nefari-
ous about their business operations
and contemplate anything that would
be illegal. That is a moot point.
It gets back down to the basic thing
we have been arguing. Is there enough
margin of error in the procedure that
it merits penalizing people in applying
for employment, and does it merit in-
vading people's rights?
Does it merit violating civil rights,
people having to prove themselves in-
nocent when they have not been ac-
cused of a crime, and all of the things
we have argued, and we are beginning
to get redundant on?
I urge the Members to oppose the
amendment.
Mr. PARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. PARRIS asked and was even
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. PARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I want
to take this time to congratulate the
gentlewoman from New Jersey on her
amendment.
It is very carefully drawn and is an
important improvement and a contri-
bution to this legislation.
Let me quickly reiterate that this
measure would exempt federally in-
sured banks, credit unions, and securi-
ties firms regulated by the Securities
and Exchange Commission from this
legislation. It does not preempt local
or State law on the use of these kinds
of tests, and cannot be used as the sole
basis for an employment decision; but
it is and should be an important tool
in that process.
Let me ask the Members to use a
little common sense here. The famous
bank robber, Willie Sutton, when
asked, why do you rob banks? An-
swered: "Because that is where the
money is."
Where do you suppose the money is
In our society? Where do you suppose
the people that are inclined to steal
money from an institution will find it?
In an insured bank or other financial
institution in this Nation is where.
They have the opportunity to make
enormous impacts on not just the
system itself but on individual deposi-
tors financial assets, so I suggest to
the Members, what more logical place
to use a lie detector test than in an in-
stitution where there are huge
amounts of cash laying around all over
the place, with an opportunity for a
person criminally inclined to take ad-
vantage of that fact.
They do not make nuts and bolts in
banks. They deal with money, and
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9570
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE November 4, 1987
they ought to be able to use polygraph
tests to determine whether or not as
an element of an employment deci-
sion, this or that applicant for employ-
ment is the kind of person that ought
to be given the opportunity to be in
that environment, and to be exposed
to that situation.
I would simply emphasize for this in-
dustry particularly, this exemption is
a very good idea. It deserves our sup-
port.
I hope the Members will support it.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, are we all in favor of
honest bank and financial institution
employees? Of course, we are.
The question before the Members is,
how do we achieve that. I do not think
we achieve it by making it convenient
and quick for the banks to hire people,
and financial institutions to hire
people without going through a good
personnel security check.
Why does American businesses want
to use the lie detector? It cannot be
because the scientific evidence is there
that it works, because it is not. It is be-
cause it is convenient.
It is easier to use the lie detector
than it is to raise the wage, minimum
wage, or create a good personnel de-
partment to really do a good personnel
check on the bank tellers.
Lie-detector gadgets are not going to
improve security fraud and bank theft,
because we have them now in the
United States.
The banks use them now, and the
banks tell us, some of them at least,
that they are hemorrhaging because
of illegal acts of some of their employ-
ees.
This is when they use the lie-detec-
tor gadget. It does not work. Maybe
the banks are just looking in the
wrong place.
Our Department of Justice indicates
they are. The research arm of the De-
partment of Justice called the Nation-
al Institute of Justice estimates that
here is the reason there is a hemor-
rhage from banks and other financial
Institutions in the United States, be-
cause of security fraud, corporate kick-
back, and insurance fraud estimated
by the Department of Justice to be
three times the loss than is employee
pilferage.
Corporatekickbacks, insurance
fraud, securities fraud being conduct-
ed not by bank tellers, the people that
are going to have to take these tests,
but being conducted illegally by the
captains of this industry. That is our
problem on Wall Street.
That is our problem in the financial
Institutions of this country; and while
the gentlewoman's amendment allows
the presidents of these financial insti-
tutions to be strapped in and the box
plugged in, how many of the Members
believe that they are going to be
strapped in? How many? How- many
people does this amendment include?
The best estimates I can get say that
it includes a lot more than we might
originally anticipate.
I am told by folks over at the Con-
gressional Research Service who tried
to count it for me, that if this amend-
ment passes, it is going to include
3,152,000's of people who could be
made susceptible to this gadget.
Does it affect credit unions? Sure.
When we get off the subway down
here, we are liable to go past a long
line of our employees in the Wright
Patman Federal Credit Union who are
lining up to take the lie detector test,
sure, because they are going to be sub-
jected to this, and so are people who
are called securities information proc-
essors.
I did not know what security infor-
mation processors were, so I checked
the law.
A securities information processor
means any person engaged in the busi-
ness of, first, collecting, processing, or
preparing for distribution or publica-
tion, or assisting, participating in or
coordinating the distribution or publi-
cation of information with respect to
transactions in or quotation!! from any
security, or distributing or publishing,
whether by means of tickertape or any
other communications network on a
current and continuing basis, informa-
tion with respect to such transaction
or quotations.
Probably most of the Members lis-
tening to that are, as I am, somewhat
confused by what it means; but it obvi-
ously includes thousands of people
who are involved in the distribution of
or publication of information about
quotations or securities.
The amendment also covers clearing
agencies.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Montana [Mr. WIL-
LIAMS] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Wit-
tuals"was allowed to proceed for 2 ad-
ditional minutes.)
Mr. WILLIAMS. When you check to
see what clearing agencies are, clear-
ing agencies mean any person who
acts as an intermediary in making pay-
ments or deliveries or both in connec-
tion with transactions in securities or
who provides facilities for comparison
of the data respecting the terms of set-
tlement of securities transactions, and
it goes on.
The point is that you can drive the
financial community of the United
States through the loophole being cre-
ated by this bill.
Again, do we want honesty in the fi-
nancial institutions of the United
States? Yes. Are we going to get it
with this outdated, timeworn, unscien-
tific device called a lie detector
gadget? No. That is not how we are
going to get it, and I urge the Mem-
bers to oppose this amendment.
Mr. GUNDERt3ON. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman,
listening to the gentleman from Mon-
tana, the next thing we are going to do
Is outlaw in this country any kind of a
preemployment interview, because
they are unscientific.
The gentlewoman from New Jersey
Is suggesting here that a polygraph
cannot be the sole determinant of
whether you hire someone or whether
you do not hire them. That is very
clear.
I would suggest that, if anything,
this is going to almost be an advantage
to an applicant for work in the finan-
cial industries. This says that if you
require the use of a polygraph, then
comprehensive consideration of that
application is also required. And do
not forget: it is the gentleman from
Montana who has imposed in this bill
a fine of up to $10,000 for a violation.
Do the Members think any bank,
any financial institution in this coun-
try is going to turn around and !some-
how slap a polygraph test on someone,
use that as the sole determinant, say
no to hiring them with the full knowl-
edge that if that person goes out and
sues, they will be fined up to $10,000?
Let us use a little common sense and
recognize what we are dealing with in
this amendment Then the gentleman
from Montana says that if this amend-
ment is approved, we will open it up to
some 3,152,000 potential employees
who will be subject to the polygraph.
Now, come on.
The facts are, and we all agree, that
there are no more than at the maxi-
mum 2 million tests conducted per
year. Let us use a little common sense.
We are also aware of the fact, and
every one of the Members can go to
any local financial institution in their
district and be reassured, that when
employers are not about to spend _any-
where from $75 to $125 just to man-
date that every one of these people,
whether it be tellers or clerical em-
ployees, has to take a polygraph test,
especially in light of the other require-
ments of the bill which would suggest
that if they give them a polygraph,
they must be fully prepared to prove
that that is not the sole determinant
for an employment action.
0 1630
I mean, it is almost like if you use
the polygraph test, you better hire me,
because if you do not, you are prob-
ably going to have to pay at least half
my annual wages in a penalty to the
Federal Government for not hiring me
because it may be the sole determi-
nant for your action.
I really call upon my colleagues. The
one thing the American people ask of
us when we come here is not be Demo-
crat, not be Republican, not be liberal,
not be conservative. They say, "For
gosh sakes, can you please go to Wash-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 9571
ington and use a little common sense
in government?"
I think that is what this amendment
Is all about. I hope we support it.
Mr. ST GERMAIN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. ST GERMAIN asked and was
given permission to proceed for an ad-
ditional 2 minutes.)
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Rhode Island is recognized for a
total of 7 minutes.
(Mr. ST GERMAIN asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ST GERMAIN. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment of
the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
As chairman of the Committee on
Banking, there is not a soul in this
House that I will take a back seat to
when it comes to discussing the rea-
sons for bank failures, fraud, embez-
zlement.
Money laundering?my God, I am
one who is responsible for the legisla-
tion that requires reporting of transac-
tions of over $10,000 and of the
amendments thereto in the recent
past. I take a back seat to no one.
I will tell you right now, a polygraph
test will do nothing about money laun-
dering.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment we
are considering would deny workers
employed by financial institutions the
protections contained in this bill.
As a result, every person employed
by a financial institution?and, I
might add, that is a term which is
quite broadly defined?would be ac-
corded a lesser degree of personal pri-
vacy and a greater presumption of
complicity than other workers.
The amendment suffers a fatal flaw
in that it makes no distinction be-
tween a bank president, whose actions
can and have threatened the safety,
and in some instances brought about
the collapse of an entire institution,
and an underpaid janitor or reception-
ist or a clerk-typist.
Over the past few years, the Bank-
ing Committee has conducted exhaus-
tive hearings into the causes of the
failure of a financial institution. Cer-
tainly economic factors such as the
downturn in the agricultural and
energy sectors have been a major
cause.
Just as important have been insider
abuse and mismanagement?some-
times criminal mismanagement. How-
ever, nowhere in our hearings did we
find that polygraph testing of employ-
ees would have reduced bank failures
or reduced losses suffered by our de-
posit insurance fund.
In the case of financial institutions,
we would simply be fooling ourselves if
we make bank employees the scape-
goat.
Instead, banks and other financial
institutions must initiate greater inter-
nal control, if needed, and Federal and
State regulators must use the powers
Congress and State legislatures have
given them to protect our Nation's fi-
nancial institutions.
The bill before us today provides
prudent exceptions which I support.
In matters involving national security
or in instances such as nuclear science,
where the potential for disaster is
great, balancing the public good
against the privacy of an employee, it
Is clear that the potential risks to the
public far outweigh the potential
damage to an individual.
However, the proponents of this
amendment have not made a case that
employees of a credit union, for exam-
ple, many of whom are volunteers,
mind you, they serve without pay,
have any greater propensity for com-
mittting a crime than any other
person. Nor have they been able to
prove that any crime committed in a
credit union by such as employee
would be likely to have cataclysmic
consequences.
I understand the concern of the gen-
tlewoman from New Jersey, but I be-
lieve she has not provided sufficient
justification to subject one class of
workers to a lesser degree of personal
freedom and privacy simply because
they work for financial institutions.
Nothing whatsoever has been shown
that suggest that employees of finan-
cial institutions have any greater op-
portunity for crime, or a greater dispo-
sition to commit crimes.
Nor has it been shown that bank
crime so threatens the public good
that we must treat all bank employees
as second-class citizens and deny them
their right to privacy, due process and
the presumption of innocence.
For these reasons I must oppose an
amendment which would deny people
an opportunity for employment or
perhaps ruin a career based upon a
polygraph's reading, and as has been
stated here today, that is of very ques-
tionable value.
Mr. Chairman, the problem with
money laundering and banks that
were fined by the Department of Jus-
tice was because that the principals,
the executives in these financial insti-
tutions, did not communicate to the
employees what their duties and re-
sponsibilities were under the reporting
requirements of legislation designed to
protect our institutions from being
used as laundromats for drug traffick-
ers.
Again I repeat, Mr. Chairman, I take
a back seat to no one on that one, be-
cause I have been in the forefront of
that fight throughout.
Mr. Seidman wrote in support of the
amendment, frankly, what he should
do is upgrade the supervision and reg-
ulation of financial institutions, rather
than talk about polygraph testing if
he wants to save money for the insur-
ing fund.
I will tell you, after my hearings,
there is a lot of room for improvement
there.
Now, let me finish by saying this. If
polygraph testing is so good, so effi-
cient, so wonderful in the area of fi-
nancial institutions, how come over a
billion dollars, we were told earlier in
this debate, was lost by employee
fraud and embezzlement?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Rhode Island has ex-
pired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. ST GER-
sum was allowed to proceed for 1 ad-
ditional minute.)
Mr. ST GERMAIN. Frankly, Mr.
Chairman, the polygraph has not done
much good, has it?
I really do not think that the uncer-
tainty involved and the case that has
been made for this amendment war-
rants the invasion of privacy and sub-
jecting these innocent people to a
polygraph test of questionable value.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objec-
tion, the gentlewoman from New
Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. I do not know if
there will be other speakers, Mr.
Chairman, but in conclusion for my
part, I would like to make some final
observations on my amendment, be-
cause I think we have gone pretty far
afield from the amendment.
I would like to again clearly state
that this is an amendment that is care-
fully defined. It is not the same
amendment as was presented in the
previous Congress. It is clearly limited
to only federally insured institutions
and securities firms that are regulated
by the SEC.
It does not preempt any State or
local laws and it cannot be used as the
sole basis for an employment decision
or of demotion or of proMotion or any
other kind of action on behalf of an
employee.
Finally, Mr. Chairman. I want to say
that somehow it has been intimated
here by the previous speakers that fi-
nancial institutions and banks do not
know what is in their own best inter-
ests. It has been indicated here that
banks and these institutions do not
know how to conduct their business
and that they do not know that it is
not in their best interests to properly
screen employees.
Now, I just ask my colleagues, if it is
not in their best interests to screen
their employees in many ways, includ-
ing the polygraph as one tool, then
why would they want this ability, an
expensive procedure, I might add, why
would they want the ability to go
through this expensive procedure
unless they felt it was in their own
best interests to do so?
I would suggest that these people
know what they are doing and that if
the theft numbers are mounting, and
they are alarmingly, that one should
not say therefore the polygraph has
failed. One can also say imagine how
great the problem would have been
had they not been able to use the
Polygraph.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9572
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. WYLIE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. ROITSEMA. I yield to the dis-
tinguished ranking member of the
Banking Committee, the gentleman
from Ohio.
Mr. WYLIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentlewoman again for yielding
and for her amendment.
We do not say that this is the final
word. We say that this is one more
tool in checking and recognizing that
there are certain exemptions already
Included in this bill and that financial
Institutions are held to a special re-
sponsibility, to a higher standard, if
you please, than some other institu-
tions in our society.
Now, it was mentioned a little while
ago that perhaps volunteer employees
of credit unions would be subjected to
a polygraph test. I doubt if there are
very many voluntary employees In
credit unions anymore, but that would
be all the more reason why would an
employee volunteer to be an employee
of a credit union? Maybe they ought
to be the ones who would be checked;
but financial institutions are required
by law to carefully screen prospective
employees and that recognizes that
certain persons with criminal records
might want to go to Work in financial
institutions to take care of an expen-
sive drug habit or maybe to take care
of a gaming debt or something else.
I think this is a good amendment Fi-
nancial institutions are required by
law to establieh comprehensive securi-
ty programs. That includes their
hiring practices. This is just one more
tool it seems to me that they ought to
have.
Mrs. ROIIKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the distinguished ranking
member of the Banking Committee.
I would simply conclude by saying
that I think the financial institutions'
people understand their own industry
and they understand their needs and
they are being overwhelmed by theft.
I think this will go far to help them in
dealing with their problem.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
woman from New Jersey Mrs. R0I7KE-
MAL
The question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were?ayes 184, noes
237, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 4091
AYES-184
Anderson Bennett Callahan
Archer Bereuter Chandler
Armey Chapman
Badham Bliley Chappell
Baker Smelter Cheney
Ballenger Broomfield Coats
Barnard Buechner Coble
Bartlett Bunning Coleman (MO)
Barton Burton Combest
Bateman Byron Courter
Craig Kasich Rogers
Dannemeyer Kolbe Rose
Darden Konnyu Roth
Daub Kyl Rotikema
de is Garza Lagoa:Arabi? Rowland (GA)
DeLay Lancaster Saila
DeWine Latta Saxton
Dickinson Leath (TX) Schaefer
Dio0uardi Lent Schuette
Doman (CA) Lewis (CA) Schulze
Dreier Lewis (FL) Sensenbrenner
Edwards (OK) Lightfoot Shaw
Emerson Livingston Shumwej
English Lott Sinister
Erdreich Lowery (CA) Nasky
Atwell Lujan Skeen
Fields Lukens, Donald Slaughter (VA)
Fish Lumen Smith (NE)
Flippo Mack Smith (TX)
Frenzel Madigan smith, Denny
Gallegly Marlenee (OR)
Gallo Martin (IL) Smith. Robert
Gekaa Martin (NY) (NH)
Gingrich Mamoll Smith, Robert
?wane McCandless (OR)
Gordon MeColhun Solomon
Gradison McEwen Spence .
Grant McGrath Stangeland
Green McMillan (NC) Stenholm
Gregg Meyers Stratton
Gunderson Mica Stump
Hall (OH) Michel Sundquist
Hall (TX) Miller (OH) Sweeney
Hammerschmidt Molinari Swindell
Hansen Montgomery Tauzin
Harris Moorhead Taylor
Hastert
Morrison (WA) Thanes (CA)
Hatcher Myers Thomas (GA)
Hayes (LA) Nelson Torricelli
Ilefley Nichols Upton
Berger Oxley Valentine
Hiler Packard Vander Jut
Holloway Parris Vucanovich
Hopkins Pashayan Walker
Hubbard Pickett Weber
Huckaby Porter Weldon
Hunter Quillen Whittaker
Hutto Ravenel Wolf
Hyde Ray Wortley
Inhale Result Wylie
Ireland Rhodes Young (PL)
Jones (NC) Ritter
Jones (TN) Roberts
Ackerman
Akaka
Alexander
Andrews
Annunzio
Anthony
Applegate
Aspin
Atkins
AuCoin
Bates
Beilenson
Bentley
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Boehlert
Boggs
Boland
Bonior
Honker
Borski
Bosco
Boucher
Boxer
Brennan
Brooks
Bruce
Bryant
Bustamante
Campbell
Cardin
Carper
CIUT
Clarke
Clay
Clinger
Coelho
Coleman (TX) Oilman
Collins Glickman
Conte Oonsales
Conyers Grandy
Cooper Gray (IL)
Coughlin Gray (PA)
NOES-237
Coyne
Crockett
Davis (IL)
Davis (MI)
DePasio
Dellums
Derrick
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Donnelly
Dorgan (ND)
Dowdy
Downey
Durbin
Dwyer
Dymally
Dyson
Early
Eckart
Edwards (CA)
Espy
Evans
Fazio
Feighan
Flake
Plorio
Foglietta
Foley
Ford (MI)
Pord (TN)
Frank
Frost
Garcia
Gaydos
Geklenson
Guerin'
Hamilton
Hawkins
Hayes (IL)
Hefner
Henry
Hertel
Hochbrueckner
Horton
Houghton
Hoyer
Hughes
Jacobs
Jeffords
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Jonts
Kanjorski
Kastesimeier
Kennedy
Kennelly
=dee
Kleiaka
Koller
Kostmayer
LarsIce
Lento'
Leach (IA)
Lehman (CA)
Lehman (FL)
Leland
Levin (MI)
Levine (CA)
Lewis (OA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Izewry (WA)
Luken, Thomas
MacKay
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mavroules
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDade
McHugh
McMillen (MD)
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Miller (WA)
Mineta
Moakley
Mollohan
Moody
Morella
Morrison (CT)
Mrazek
Murphy
Murtha
Nagle
Hatcher
Neal
Nielson
Nowak
Dakar
Oberstar
Obey
Olin
Ortiz
Owens (NY)
Panetta
Patterson
Pease
Pelosi
Penny
Pepper
Biaggi
Brown (CA)
Brown (CO)
Crane
MO
November 4, 1987
Perkins
Petri
Pickle
Price (IL)
Price (NC)
Purnell
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Ridge
Rinaldo
Robinson
Rodin?
&Is
Rostenkowski
Rowland (CT)
Roybel
Rump
Sabo
Savage
Sawyer
Scheuer
Schneider
Schroeder
Schumer
Sharp
Shays
Silunaki
Skaggs
Skelton
Snows
Solara
Sprint
St Germain
Staggers
Stallings
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Swift
Spur
Tanen
Tanker
Torres
Towns
Trallcant
Traxler
Vento
Viselosky
Volkmer
Walgren
Watkins
Waltman
Weiss
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Slattery Wolpe
Slaughter (NY) Wyden
Smith (FL) Yates
Smith (LA) Yatron
Smith (NJ) Young (AK)
NOT VOTINO-12
Maid !Won.
Denten Kemp
Ciephardt Owens (UT)
Howard Roemer
0 1655
The Clerk announced the following
pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Bum, of Colorado for, with Ms.
Emus against.
Mr. BEREUTER. and Mr. STRAT-
TON changed their votes from "no" to
"aye.?
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was an-
nounced as above recorded.
ASIENDMINT OVIHRID BY KR. RICHARDSON
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman,
I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. RICHARDSON:
Page 8, after line 13, insert the following
new subsection:
(d) Exissesion rat Dave SECURITY, DRUG
TriErr, or Dam DIVRRSIOW INVISTISA-
nom?This Act shall not prohibit the use
of a lie detector test by any employer au-
thorised 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
agreement,
that explicitly or implicitly limits or prohib-
its the use of lie detector tests by such em-
ployer,
(2) the test is administered only to an em-
ployee who has, or a prospective employee
who would have, direct access to the manu-
facture, storage, distribution, or sale of any
such controlled substance; and
(3) the results of an analysis of lie detec-
tor charts are not used as the sole basis
upon which any employee or prospective
employee is discharged, dismissed, disci-
plined in any manner, or denied employ-
ment or promotion.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, .1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. RICHARDSON (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
New Mexico?
There was no objection
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman,
I rise to offer an amendment for
myself and Mr HUGHES. Our amend-
ment will counter the problems of the
theft and diversion of controlled sub-
stances into the illegal drug market.
The Richardson-Hughes amendment
specifically exempts those companies
authorized by the Federal Govern-
ment to manufacture, distribute, or
dispense controlled substances from
the polygraph ban. Its intent is to
minimize the theft and diversion of
dangerous drugs and narcotics from le-
gitimate sources in the United States.
The exemption provided by this
amendment is narrowly drawn: the
test can only be administered to em-
ployees who have, or prospective em-
ployees who would have, direct access
to the manufacture, storage, distribu-
tion, or sale of controlled substances.
More importantly, the amendment ex-
plicitly prohibits polygraph test re-
sults from being used as the sole deter-
mining factor in the hiring, disciplin-
ing, or firing of any employee Finally,
this amendment is the exact, word for
word language that was adopted by
the House when we debated the poly-
graph ban in the 99th Congress.
Each year, large volumes of prescrip-
tion drugs are stolen or diverted into
illicit channels. The Drug Enforce-
ment Administration (DEM and the
General Accounting Office estimate
that 250 million to 270 million dosage
units of legally manufactured drugs
are stolen or diverted into illicit chan-
nels annually. There is a justified need
for a pharmaceutical exemption. The
DEA reports losses in the retail chain
which includes retail pharmacies,
warehouses, and trucks in transit of
between 500,000 and 1 million dosage
units yearly.
More importantly, these losses are
solely attributed to employee theft. In
other words, employee theft accounts
for 80 percent of all losses incurred by
the chain drug industry. There is,
however, another meaning to these
DEA figures: employee theft and di-
version results in direct and substan-
tial dollar losses to the involved indus-
tries. Retail corporate drug stores
alone lose over $480 million annually
due to internal theft. I believe these
statistics Indicate that there is a legiti-
mate requirement for the Richardson-
Hughes exemption from the poly-
graph ban.
In addition to economic reasons
however, there are valid social policy
arguments that support passage of
this amendment. I am convinced this
amendment is a public health and
safety amendment addressing the
prof:skins of drug abuse and the safety
of this Nation's prescription drugs.
The incentive for Bildt drug trading
looms large when a capsule or pill
Which retails for 50 cents can com-
mand $25 to $35 on the black market.
This presents a clear and present
danger for manufacturers and distrib-
utors who must guarantee the securi-
ty, safety, and integrity of prescription
drugs. While this amendment won't
stop drug trafficking, it will present a
clear deterrent to those who would
steal or divert prescription drugs.
Lastly and perhaps most important-
ly, the Richardson-Hughes amend-
ment will help combat this Nation's
drug abuse problem. Drug abuse is
pervasive in the United States. An esti-
mated 40 million abuse illegal or legiti-
mately controlled drugs. Drug addic-
tion not only takes its toll in lost pro-
ductivity?absenteeism, crime, and
medical expenses from drug dependen-
cies cost the U.S. economy $230 billion
each year?but in human lives and suf-
fering. Stopping the flow of drugs into
the black market is essential to com-
bating this Nation's drug abuse prob-
lem and I believe this amendment will
act as a deterrent?helping to stop the
flow of controlled substances into illic-
it channels.
CI 1710
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman proponents of H.R.
1212 claim that the business conmumi-
ty is requiring individuals and employ-
ees to take too many polygraph tests.
According to my friend from Montana,
Mr. Wrumuss, some 2 mMion tests are
given every year in the private sector.
In my view, this number poles in
comparison to the number of Ameri-
cans who are abusing addictive drugs
and illicit substances. According to a
number of sources, 40 million people
in the United States regularly use ille-
gal drugs or abuse legitimate con-
trolled substances, in other words,
America has a serious, widespread
drug problem.
When we consider that there are
some 1 million jobs among drug manu-
facturing companies, wholesalers and
retail pharmacies, the odds that an in-
dividual with a chemical dependency
problem or a history of drug related
crimes seeking employment with one
of these businesses is fairly substan-
tial.
Congress would be making a terrible
mistake if we do not provide an ex-
emption on the controlled substance
issue. To reject the Richardson
amendment will mean that we will
have created a gaping loophole in our
war against drugs and drug-related
crimes. Moreover, rejecting this
amendment will mean we'll lose a val-
uable procedure available to compa-
nies in their efforts to minimise and
deter losses of controlled drugs.
H 9573
No matter what your perspective is
on lie detector tests, I believe that it is
imperative in the name of national se-
curity as well as public health and
safety to carve out an exemption so
that drug thefts and diversion from le-
gitimate sources do not escalate any
further.
Mr. Chairman, we agreed to this
very same amendment in the last Con-
gress because we, sadly, acknowledged
we have a terrible drug abuse/drug
theft problem. I strongly urge the
House to adopt this important amend-
ment.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I
want to express my appreciation to
the framer of this amendment. I think
It is very carefully thought out.
We agreed to this a year ago. I think
the need is very apparent. It has been
especially seen by this Congress.
We have an opportunity here to pro-
vide an extra element of protection to
our young children from those who
would abuse their employment privi-
lege by stealing drugs and making
them available to our school children.
I urge everybody to support this
amendment.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio Mfr.
Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I too want to join
Congressman RICHARDSON and Con-
gressman lit/GHES in support of this
amendment. This is the amendment
that passed the last time this bill was
up. I think it makes a great deal of
sense. Our committee, the Oversight
and Investigations Subcommittee of
the Committee on Energy and Com-
merce have had numerous hearings on
the whole question of drug diversion.
It is a very, very serious problem in
this country. Many of the drugs that
are diverted are caused by theft,
which eventually get into the illicit
market.
So it is very important that we have
this tool.
As the gentleman from New Mexico
said, this is not the be-all, end-all, it is
not going to solve the total problem,
but it is a tool which these companies
can use, and these pharmacies can use
to determine what kind of people they
have working for them.
So it is a well-crafted amendment.
Mr. Hoax= and I are both on the
Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse
and Control. We understand the real
problem of drugs in our country. This
is a small step that we can use in pro-
viding the exemption which la provid-
ed for in the amendment by the gen-
tleman from New Mexico.
Mr. ECKART. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio f Mr. Beams].
Mr. ECKART. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9574 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE November 4,1987
My colleague from Ohio and I have
worked together on the Subcommittee
on Oversight and Investigations on
this matter. It was a year ago that this
was the Armey-Eckart amendment
that the House passed. It is my under-
standing that the gentleman's repre-
sentations are true. I wish to be associ-
ated with them. It does include our
direct access language and makes clear
we want to focus on those employees
who are in those circumstances.
So I wish to associate myself with
the gentleman's remarks and thank
him for yielding to me.
Mr. ARMEY. I thank both of the
gentlemen.
Let me say as I did say, as Mr.
EMART pointed out this is a well craft-
ed amendment. Let me say to the body
at large that a "yes" vote on the Rich-
ardson amendment is a vote for the
safety and health of your children.
- I applaud the gentleman from New
Mexico once again for his concern and
In bringing this amendment.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. OWENS of New York. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MAINSIKEZ. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York.
(Mr. OWENS of New York asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. OWENS of New York. Mr.
Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in Strong support of the
Employee Polygraph Protection Act (H.R:
1212) and against the many amendments
which will be offered today to gut the bill.
Polygraph screening does not work, cannot
work, and does not belong in the American
workplace.
One of the things that has made this coun-
try great is our boundless faith in science and
technology, but sometimes it can get us into
trouble. We have seen so many miracles
made possible in our lives through science
that it does not seem implausible to us that a
little electronic box really could tell whether or
not we are telling the truth. But the reality is
that polygraph screening is essentially a
quack science which should enjoy about as
much credibility as the "x-ray specs" adver-
tised in the back pages of comic books. It
does not measure truthfulness; it measures
physiological indicators of strew?changes in
our blood pressure, breathing, and perspira-
tion. Sometimes those signals Of stress can
mean you are lying, but they can also mean
any number of other things as well, including
simply that having electrodes strapped to your
head and being interrogated like a criminal
makes you very nervous. Study after study
has found that there is absolutely no scientific
basis for the idea that polygraph exams can
reliably identify lies and deception.
We tolerate many foolish practices in our
society and if polygraphs were used as be-
nignly as comic book "x-ray specs" they
would be of no concern to us. That is not the
case, however. Despite the dearth of scientific
evidence to support its reliability, the use of
polygraph screening by employers is now epi-
demic and it is hurting too many of our con-
stituents. Every year, hundreds of thousands
of American workers?innocent, honest,
decent people?are being denied jobs and
turned into unemployable pariahs on the basis
of this bogus, pseudoscientific exam. Because
the polygraph measures physiological func-
tions, persons with physical and mental dis-
abilities or ailments are particularly vulnerable
to being unfairly and incorrectly identified as
"liars" by the exam. For similar reasons, as
well as because the interpretation of poly-
graph results is inevitably subjective and
prone to bias, there is also evidence that poly-
graph screening unfairly discriminates against
black Americans and other ethnic minorities; if
you are black, in other words, the polygraph is
far more likely to tag you as a liar than if you
are white. And most perversely of all, the
greatest discriminatory impact of polygraph
screening falls on precisely those of our con-
stituents who are the most scrupulously
honest because their understandable indigna-
tion, surprise, and anger at being interrograted
is likely to create the kind of stress the poly-
graph treats as a signal of deception.
The opponents of H.R. 1212 and those who
support industry-specific exemptions to the
legislation would have you believe that the
polygraph is necessary to combat employee
theft?even employee "terrorism"?and are
trying hard to' cast this debate as some kind
of referendum on the crime in the workplace.
This is absurd. There is simply no evidence to
support their claim that the pseudoscience of
polygraph screening is an effective, much less
an essential tool against employee crime.
Businesses in those States which have
banned the use of the polygraph experience
no higher rate of theft and other crimes by
employees than businesses in those States
where polygraph use is unregulated and has
been allowed to flourish. Indeed, the National
Institute of Justice Study on Employee Theft
found that employers who use polygraph
screening actually experienced a higher rate
of employee theft than those who did not.
Other opponents of RR. 1212 have argued
that instead of banning the use of the poly-
graph in private employment we should first
try to regulate its use in the workplace. Unfor-
tunately, advocates of this approach seem to
have missed the point. Since polygraph
screening does not work, trying to regulate its
use makes about as much sense as trying to
regulate numerology or palm-reading--it is an
utterly pointless exercise which is inherently
unworkable. Moreover, the few States that
have tried this approach have demonstrated
little success in stopping what even polygraph
advocates agree are abuses of the device. In
fact, during the subcommittee's consideration
of H.R. 1212, one of the most frightening sto-
ries we heard about employer abuse and
misuse of the polygraph was told by a worker
who was purportedly "protected" by one of
the State laws upon which the Darden substi-
tute has been modeled. Polygraph regulation
was of no use to this man and would be of no
use to other American workers either.
The massive polygraph screening now
taking place in American workplaces is an
abomination and it must be halted. If thou-
sands of our constituents were being branded
liars and denied employment on the basis of
their horoscopes, we would not hesitate to
outlaw the practice. The polygraph is no more
useful or valid in detecting deception than as-
trology, but we have tolerated its use because
it looks somehow scientific with its tangle of
wires and electrodes and its charts of colorful,
squiggly lines. It is long past time for us to
end this absurd masquerade and to provide
the protection American workers need from
the dangerous quackery of the polygraph.
Pass H.R. 1212 and defeat the weakening
amendments.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I do
not know how all of a sudden the legis-
lation becomes a panacea to curb all
the abuses in banking, in child care, in
care of the elderly and all of the
amendments that we have heard so
far. I do not believe that security
measures for the safekeeping of drugs
or for keeping them out of the hands
of drug dealers should depend on the
reliability of a machine that is ques-
tionable.
The credibility of the machine and
the track record of the machine is not
such that we should depend on it for
our security measures to keep drugs
out of the hands of drug dealers. If we
are reduced to that kind of thinking
then we ought to turn over the key to
the cabinet to the drug dealers be-
cause it is not going to do the job.
The polygraph is not a security
measure. Twenty to forty percent of
the time the machines are wrong. If
this amendment passes it is just lead-
ing us down the primrose path of a
false sense of security.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HUGHES TO THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR., RICHARDSON
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. HUGHES to the
amendment offered by Mr. Ricimanson: In
the matter proposed to be inserted by the
amendment offered by the Gentleman from
New Mexico, strike out "and" at the end of
paragraph (2); strike out the period at the
end of paragraph (3) and insert in lieu
thereof "; and"; and after such paragraph
insert the following new paragraph:
(4) if the test is administered to a current
employee?
(A) the test is administered only in con-
nection with an ongoing investigation of
criminal or other misconduct involving, or
potentially involving, loss or injury to the
manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of
any such controlled substance by such em-
ployer; and
(B) the employee had access to the person
or property which is the subject of the in-
vestigation.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment to the
amendment be considered 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. Mr. Chairman, I rise
In Very strong support of the Richard-
son amendment which creates a
narrow exception from the prohibition
in the bill in the case of the traffic in
controlled substances. The amend-
ment I am offering improves the Rich-
ardson amendment by limiting its coy-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05 : CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 9575
erage in investigative uses of poly-
graph testing.
The first question of course is. Do
we need a special exception in this bill
to fight drug trafficking and drug
abuse? I think that this House is on
record singling out the importance of
comprehensively attacking the drug
abuse problem on every front.
In fact it was just over a year ago, on
October 27, 1986. that President
Reagan signed the Anti-Drug Abuse
Act, which originated in this House,
the most massive legislative assault
and comprehensive attack upon the
problems of drug abuse in this Nation.
Certain drugs are well known to the
public and extensively covered in the
news media?drugs such as heroin, co-
caine, and marijuana. However, there
are other drugs which have legitimate
medical uses which are even more
widely abused. Throughout the 1970's
and 1980's these drugs were responsi-
ble for three-quarters of all the deaths
and injuries due to drug abuse in the
United States. They were responsible
for more deaths than heroin and co-
caine combined. Only in the last 2
years, because the tidal wave of
"crack" cocaine has engulfed our
cities' youth, has the percentage of
deaths and injuries due to legitimate
drugs gone down. Legitimate drugs are
produced here in the United States.
We can't blame anyone else for the
thousands of deaths and tens of thou-
sands of hospital admissions from
these drugs.
In the past 3 years this House has
taken the lead in strengthening our
ability to prevent the diversion of le-
gitimate drugs from channels of medi-
cal distribution to the blackmarket
We have appropriated additional
funds for the drag enforcement ad-
ministration to investigate these cases.
We have strengthened the laws to
allow the revocation of registrations of
manufacturers, distributors, and medi-
cal practitioners who are involved in
diversion. We made the robbery and
burglary of controlled substances from
a registrant a separate Federal crime.
Recent estimates by DEA of the
quantities of drugs diverted run as
high as 780 million doses per year. It's
a very serious problem. These pills are
widely distributed to chiktren because
they are easy to take. They don't need
to be injected or smoked. They look
like medicine because they are medi-
cine, but they are very dangerous, and
when offered to children they are a
specially dangerous temptation.
These legitimate drugs?powerful
painkillers, tranquilizers, and atimu-
lanta?are widely sought in the black-
market. A single 4 milligram pill of a
painkiller such as dilaudid sells for be-
tween $30 and $65 on the blackmarket.
This is easy money for the unscrupu-
lous employee who pilfers drugs, and
big money for more sophisticated
criminals who try to infiltrate whole-
sale drug distribution operations.
The Richardson amendment gives us
a critical tool to prevent the organized
crime rings from infiltrating drug com-
panies and distributors. My amend-
ment narrows the Richardson amend-
ment. In the case of current employ-
ees, a polygraph can only be used in
connection with. an ongoing hwestiga-
tion or criminal or other misconduct
Involving the manufacture, distribu-
tion, or dispensing of controlled sub-
stances, and only if the employee had
access to the person or property which
is the subject of the investigation.
There can be no random polygraph
testing of current employees under
this amendment. Indeed, the industry
has told us that they don't need
random testing.
There are Members who may have
been reluctant to support. the Richard-
son exception. In light of my amend-
ment, which narrows and focuses the
Richardson amendment, I urge these
Members to take another look at the
Richardson amendment
I urge my colleagues to support both
my amendment and the Richardson
amendment
0 1723
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUGHES. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman,
I waist to commend the gentleman for
offering his amendment. I think it im-
proves the one that I offered. It nar-
rows the scope, it creates a threshold,
and I would just like to advise the gen-
tleman that I would be pleased to
accept his amendment.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for his support
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUGHES. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from Montana.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I
want to be sure I understand the gen-
tleman's amendment. The gentleman
Is eliminating the postemployment
random nature of the Richardson
amendment and substituting for that
the use of the lie detector in an inci-
dent-only matter?
Mr. imams. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
}Incites] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. HUGHES
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will yield, let me ask
this question:
Does the gentleman's amendment
continue to allow all preemployment
testing to go forward, or has it elimi-
nated the preemployment. testing in
the Richardson amendment?
Mr. HUGHES. No. the preemploy-
ment testing is permitted under my
amendment
Mr. WILLIABC3. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, let me
say that the only thing it does is it fo-
cuses the postemployment testing on
those incidents which in fact result in
an ongoing criminal or civil Investiga-
tion.
Let me make one additional point if
I might before I yield bar.k the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we make an excep-
tion for the law enforcement commu-
nity. The law enforcement communi-
ty, in using the polygraph, basically is
exposed to a. very small amount of
controlled substances. Here we are
talking about millions and millions
and millions of dosage units that are
being handled by these pharmaceuti-
cal companies and distributors, and
this is where we really need to have
the polygraph testing for diversion.
So I urge my colleagues, if they are
persuaded that law enforcement has
needs in the area of controlled sub-
stances, they certainly a fortiori have
to argue that we need Et in this par-
ticular area.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues
to support my amendment and to sup-
port the Richardson amendment,
which is an excellent amendment I
can tell my colleagues that I would
have a hard time supporting this legis-
lation if this amendment does not
carry.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-
ance of my time.
Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the
Members ought to realize that for the
greatest period of the history of the
FBI they did not involve themselves in
drug cases. They specifically were pro-
hibited from being involved in drug
cases because J. Edgar Hoover. seeing
the tremendous amounts of money to
be gained in the illegal Use of drugs,
was afraid it was such a corrosive, cor-
ruptive influence on even law enforce-
ment that it would be extremely diffi-
cult for him to maintain the purity, so
to speak, of the FBI.
A number of years ago, in conjunc-
tion with this administration, we made
the decision and the administration
made the decision to remove the bar-
rier to investigation by the FBI, to
have them work with the DEA. In
fact, some of J. Edgar Hoover's worst
thoughts came to the fore. We have
had for the first time in the history of
the FBI, some FBI agents who went
bad, and we have had some prosecu-
tions of FBI agents. Nonetheless, we
thought that risk was appropriate be-
cause of the enormity of the drug
problem facing the Nation.
Is it too much to believe that with
all the requirements we make prospec-
tive FBI agents go through, when
even then some of them succumb to
the temptations in this area, there-
fore, some of the people working in
the pharmaceutical industry would
not be tempted to fall to the illegal
perpetrators of drugs? I think if we
looked at it realistically, we know that
Is happening. Not only is the illegal
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9576 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
manufacture and distribution of drugs
a problem, as the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Humes] has pointed out,
but the illegal diversion of drugs
which are controlled, having been pro-
duced legally, is a problem in this
country. If we believe it is a continuing
major problem why should we remove
one of the most valuable tools that
law enforcement has found in policing
itself from private industry?
I heard my friend, the gentleman
from California, say a little earlier
that Members who support this
amendment believe this gadget is the
panacea, and I would say to my friend,
the gentleman from California, that
he misstates our position. This is not
the panacea, but it is a tool, an effec-
tive tool, a seen by law enforcement,
that we are without this amendment
taking away from the private sector,
those who produce, manufacture and
distribute controlled substances. It is
not a panacea, but it is an effective
tool.
Others have said, "Wait a second.
This involves the constitutional rights
of individual Americans." I would say,
if we look at the 5th and 14th amend-
ments of the Constitution, we would
find that they talk about State action.
They talk about prohibiting unreason-
able searches and seizures by the
State, that is, by Government officials.
Here we have made that exception, a
blanket exception in that regard.
What we are asking is this: What
should be the ease in the private
sector, in the private employer-em-
ployee relationships? All I would say
Is, if we are going to be true to the
feelings of the floor of the House that
were expressed last year in support of
the antidrug bill, truly a bipartisan ap-
proach fighting the drug problem in
this country, we ought to support the
amendment. It is more narrowly
drawn now, with the Hughes amend-
ment, so we do not have to fear
random polygraph tests being adminis-
tered to already existing employees,
but it does continue to allow preem-
ployment screening and having the
polygraph as part of that, not the
total thing but part of it.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that
this is a reasonable amendment. It is
something we ought to adopt. It is
something that is not to be feared. It
is something we should accept as rea-
sonable under the circumstances.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the
author of the amendment would
answer a few questions to clarify my
understanding of the amendment.
Does the amendment include the poly-
graphing of people who transport
drugs, that is, truck drivers?
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman,
if the gentleman will yield, the answer
to the question is no.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, let
me ask, what does the gentleman
mean in his amendment when he says,
"distribution"?
Mr. RICHARDSON. What I mean
by "distribution" is the normal proce-
dure of drug manufacturers and dis-
tributors. Once again, it would pre-
clude the trucker's ability to have
direct access to controlled substances.
Trucks transporting controlled sub-
stances are locked before leaving the
loading dock and unlocked at the
point of destination by authorized per-
sonnel.
In answer to the second question, I
mean anybody involved in the entire
process in the channel of controlled
substances.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Except truckers?
Mr. RICHARDSON. Yes.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will answer another
question, so it is the gentleman's pur-
pose that those who haul drugs or
transport drugs are not included in his
amendment?
Mr. RICHARDSON. That is correct.
Mr. WILLIAMS How about those
people who store drugs or are involved
in warehousing drugs on their way to
the pharmacy?
Mr. RICHARDSON. Let me just
make this case: Those that are regis-
tered with the DEA, those that store
and are registered with the DEA are
Included. So storage operators are in-
cluded.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS I yield to the gen-
tleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding, be-
cause I think the gentleman is doing
the House a service in pointing out
what the Richardson amendment in-
cludes.
I think it is important to read para-
graph 2 of the amendment. It would
be administered or permitted to be ad-
ministered only to an employee or pro-
spective employee who would have
direct access to the manufacture, stor-
age, distribution, or sale of controlled
substances. So whether it is a truck
driver or a pharmacy or a pharmacist
or anyone else, it is only employees
who have direct access to the sub-
stance itself. I think that is a fair
place to draw the line. A truck driver
who does not have access to the con-
trolled substance is no threat, and,
therefore, this amendment would not
apply to him.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, let
me reclaim my time. I appreciate the
gentleman's assistance and his expla-
nation.
Relating to these substances in
schedules 1, 2, 3, and 4, which appar-
ently are the only controlled sub-
stances the gentleman's amendment
covers, are those substances always
sealed? Are they always in a certain
state of security by having been sealed
as they are transported and stored ac-
cording to DEA's regulations?
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman,
if the gentleman will yield, that is cor-
November 4, 1987
rect. They are also sealed within the
truck, meaning that controlled sub-
stances are doubled-sealed during
transportation.
Mr. WILLIAMS. So as those sub-
stances come across the country and
are put in a warehouse, does the
manner in which they are sealed mean
that the people dealing with them in
the warehouse are not subject to a lie
detector examination under the gen-
tleman's amendment?
Mr. RICHARDSON. They are cov-
ered under the bill.
Mr. WILLIAMS. So the truck driver
would not be the person who unloads
the truck and stores the drugs, so he
would not be subject to examination?
Mr. RICHARDSON. The gentleman
is correct.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, if
the author of the amendment will Con-
tinue to respond, let me say that I ap-
preciate his willingness to engage in
this colloquy.
Does the author of the amendment
know what the position of the Ameri-
can Pharmateutical Association is on
the gentleman's amendment?
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman,
my understanding is that the entire
pharmaceutical industry, the drug
manufacturers and distributors, are in
support of the legislation. '
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman is wrong. Let me read from
a letter to me from the American
Pharmaceutical Association. I will
read only the one sentence which
sums up the association's position.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Wn.-
Limo] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Wm-
LIAM was allowed to proceed for 2 ad-
ditional minutes.)
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, let
me say to my colleagues that I want to
share this with them because I believe
this is very important. The American
Pharmaceutical Association has writ-
ten this:
"The American Pharmaceutical As-
sociation's position is that polygraph
tests should not be used as a means of
preemployment screening in pharma-
cies, should not be used in pharmacies
for routine security checking of em-
ployees"?and the amendment offered
by the gentleman from New Jersey
may have taken care of that?and fi-
nally, "should not be used in pharma-
cies in the course of investigation for
causes."
The American Pharmaceutical Asso-
ciation itself is against this amend-
ment. I ask, why is that? Because they
know this gadget does not work. It cre-
ates a false sense of security, and they
do not want it. They do not want the
pharmacists and the drugstore owners
of America to be relying on a gadget
that does not work. The American
Pharmaceutical Association knows
that we cannot protect the American
public when we let pharmacists and
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
drugstore owners depend upon this
faulty gadget.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New Mexico.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman,
I would like to make the point very
clear that while the gentleman may
have a letter from the American Phar-
maceutical Association, they are very
limited in being involved in the storing
and distribution of drugs as prescribed
in this amendment.
Let me just say that the National
Association of Chain Dealer Drugs is
supportive of this bill. Most drug man-
ufacturers have sent many letters
throughout the Congress in support of
this legislation. Law enforcement
agencies support it. Perhaps that
small group that the gentleman men-
tions is not included.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Wn.-
tiAms) has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. WIL-
LIAMS was allowed to proceed for 2 ad-
ditional minutes.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New Mexico.
CI 1740
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman,
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The implication that the gentleman
is trying to leave is that this is not
supported by a wide group of people
and companies in the drug business,
and that is not the case.
I wanted to point that out to the
gentleman.
Mr. WILLIAMS. The American
Pharmaceutical Association was
founded in 1852, and it is the leader in
the professional and scientific ad-
vancement of this industry.
This gets at the point of it. Of
course, we want to protect America
from a misuse of these drugs, but here
is the association that is most impor-
tant for this matter saying do not
allow the lie-detector gadget to be
used to protect America from these
drugs, because it is no good. It is
faulty.
We use it now, and it does not work.
It is part of the reason we have a hem-
orrhaging in our industry. Instead,
they want to come up with good per-
sonnel practices. They want the re-
spected official law enforcement agen-
cies of the United States, the public
agencies, to be investigating these
matters, not the manager of Drug
Fair. That is our problem now.
We are trying to tighten up this
hemorrhaging in America with regard
to the illegal use of drugs, but I
submit, and the American Pharmaceu-
tical Association agrees, that contin-
ued use of the lie detector will do the
reverse of what the gentleman from
New Mexico and others are trying to
do here this evening.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the gen-
tleman who just spoke is missing the
point. We are not here to represent
the American Pharmaceutical Associa-
tion or any other employer, and we are
not here to look at strictly protecting
the rights of the employee.
We must not lose the big picture
which is, if we are going to pass this
bill, which I believe is ill-advised, that
It has to be pared down to exempt cer-
tain categories.
We have done it earlier in areas that
have security sensitivity by a very
narrow vote. Now we are going to have
an opportunity to do this again, and in
casting your vote, do not talk about
the American Pharmaceutical Associa-
tion. Do not look at Dart Drug or
Drug Fair, but look at the kids out
there that are getting these drugs, the
misguided drugs that are illegally
coming onto the market and being di-
verted. It is a big problem.
The gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Huoligs] said he did not think he
could support this legislation without
this very important amendment in it.
Whereas I do not intend to support
this legislation on final passage, we
are very kindly cleaning it up and get-
ting rid of some of the sensitive areas
that must be addressed.
The gentleman from Montana has
made numerous references like it is a
piece of witchcraft. It is not.
Some 30 percent of the Fortune 500
companies in this country today use
the polygraph test. It is not altogether
correct, I know that; and there are
some stopgaps and some guarantees
that have to be put in it.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
YOUNG] will offer some of these pro-
tections to the employee later which
will make a very, very positive addition
to what is going on here this evening.
Addressing right now the amend-
ment of the gentleman from New
Mexico, the gentleman has pointed
out a very important part of the econ-
omy and commerce that must be made
an exception to.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman
from New Mexico.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman,
I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
I want to point out here a statement
in support of the amendment by the
National Wholesale Druggists Associa-
tion.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, in con-
clusion I would certainly hope that if
we are going to have a vote on this
particular issue, that it be an over-
whelming "yes" vote.
We are going far beyond the rights
of the employee at this particular
point, and we are talking about the
rights of America to be crime free and
drug free as much as possible.
H 9077
This is -11 very important amend-
ment, an exception that I hope the
Members will vote for.
Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Speaker, in speaking of the
Spanish Inquisition, the author of the
novel "Captains from Castille" spoke
of a situation where, "no one was too
innocent to be proved guilty."
I am thinking of an incident about a
year ago when our incumbent Attor-
ney General was before the other
body for confirmation.
It was determined that his official fi-
nancial report, which he had filed and
signed, was false. The issue was wheth-
er it was consciously false or negligent-
ly false.
At that time some commentators
suggested that Mr. Meese, being one
of the leading advocates of the use of
so-called polygraph or lie detector
tests, take a dose of his own medicine,
which might prove to be truth serum,
in order that it be determined with
some reliability whether his false fi-
nancial statement was intentional or
unintentional.
If I recall correctly, Mr. Meese de-
clined to submit to a polygraph test.
That raises an interesting question.
Did he decline to submit to the poly-
graph test because he thought the test
was unreliable, or did he refuse to
submit to that test, because he
thought it was reliable?
Surely one must conclude one or the
other.
The Good Book tells us among the
Ten Commandments, that thou shall
not bear false witness. I wonder if that
only applies to humans, or also to the
contraptions humans have contrived
to manufacture.
If this mechanism is unreliable, and
If we assume the honesty of our own
Attorney General, we must assume
that in his opinion the test is unreli-
able, then one must ask, how does it
suddenly become reliable simply be-
cause it is drug abuse which one is
trying to detect.
If a chicken cannot fly across the
Ohio River to read poetry does it not
follow then that a chicken cannot fly
across the Ohio River to read prose?
If a Member is among those who be-
lieve that the polygraph test is inher-
ently unreliable?as our courts have
repeatedly held?how do drugs make it
reliable?
If, on the other hand, a Member be-
lieves that it is reliable, then why not
apply it to the detection of all crimes?
It is important to me that controlled
substances not be put to illicit use. But
that is not the issue here. The issue is
whether the polygraph which the
courts say is unreliable is somehow
made reliable by a vote of the Con-
gress.
One is reminded of the City Council
which passed an ordinance which said,
"Henceforth and hereafter pigeons
shall not light on city hall."
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
11 9578
If this polygraph machine is unreli-
able, can an act by the Congress make
it reliable? No.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. JAC013S. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman. I
thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
I thank the gentleman for the gen-
tleman's statement, and I do not agree
with the gentleman with regard to the
use of the lie detector, the polygraph
as a tool in law enforcement; but I
would suggest that the gentleman
would have problems with the bill, be-
cause the bill carves out exceptions for
government, law enforcement, intelli-
gence-gathering.
Mr. JACOBS. I would suggest, all of
the Members should have problems
with the logic discussed in the last
couple of hours here.
I think this is definitely a cue for
consistency. Either the gun shoots bul-
lets or blanks. It it shoots bullets, ft
may be useful; and if it shoots blanks
and impugns the reputation of a thor-
oughly honest citizen, which I assume
Mr. Memo considers himself to be
when he did not take the test, then it
is not useful.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman. I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman. I
rise, first of all, to respond to the gen-
tleman from Montana, who suggests
that somehow because the American
Pharmaceutical Association is opposed
to this amendment, that it is a bad
amendment.
The fact is that the Drug Enforce-
ment Administration estimates that
the employees are stealing between
500,000 to more than 1 million doses of
dangerous drugs per year.
And let us be very blunt about it.
It is the American Pharmaceutical
Association that apparently has some
of their employees, not the maJoritY,
but some of their employees who are
probably stealing those drugs who do
not want to be subject to a lie-detector
test. That is why they have taken that
position.
The pharmaceutical manufacturers
and distributors are in favor of it.
Look as well at what the gentleman
from Montana said last year on the
floor of the House when we considered
this legislation.
He stood up before the House and
said. "Likewise, the bill before us pro-
vides exemptions for those private
businesses that directly Impact on our
national security or public health. We
will be accepting amendments to pro-
vide other exemptions regarding dap,
gerous drugs, security guards, and the
protection of electric and nuclear pow-
erplants and public transportation. We
will accept those amendments, because
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
they are s. matter of protecting the na-
tional health and safety."
That is what we are talking about in
this particular amendment. We are
talking about the fact that we need to
protect the health and safety of our
young children, as the gentleman from
Florida stated.
This is not a cure-all, but a tooL The
amendment is very clear; and as the
amendment by the gentleman from
New Jersey says, when we are dealing
with present employees, we make sure
that testing is incident-specific, not
random. And that harassment and
other abuses are addressed.
If we cannot pass this amendment,
then we are suggesting that the so-
called war on drugs that this Congress
waged last year was just a joke.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New Jersey (Mr. Humus) to
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New Mexico (Mr. RICHARD-
SON,.
The amendment to the amendment
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New Mexico [Mr. RICHARD-
soN], as amended.
The question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman,
I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were?ayes 313, noes
105, not voting 15, as follows;
Moll No. 4101
AYES-313
Akaks Carr
Alexander Chandler
Anderson Chapman
Andrews Chappell
Annunzio Cheney
Anthony Clarke
Archer Coats
Anney Coble
Aspin Coelho
Dedham Coleman (MO)
Baker Coleman (TX)
Ballenger Combed
Barnard Conte
Bartlett Cooper
Barton Coughlin
Bateman Coulter
Bennett Craig
Bentley Dannenteyer
Bereuter Darden
Bevill Daub
Bilbray Dans (IL)
Bilirakis Davis (MI)
Bliley de la Garza
Boggs DeLay
Boland Derrick
Honker DeWine
Borski Dickinson
Bosco Disks -
Bonner Dingell
Brennan DioGuarill
Broomfield Dixon
Brown (CA) Donnelly
Bryant Doman (ND)
Buecimer Doman (CA)
Bunning Dowdy
Burton Dreier
Hutment* Dwyer
Byron Dyson
Callahan Early
Campbell Eckert
Cardin Ethvards (OK)
Carper liniarson
English
Erdreich
INDY
Pasoell
Powell
Fazio
Peighan
Fields
Fish
Flippo
Florio
Poley
Ford (TN)
Frenzel
Frost
Gallegly
Gallo
Gaydas
Geku
Gibbons
Gilman
Gingrich
GliCkman
Goodling
Gordon
Gradisce
Great
Gray (IL)
Green
Gregg
Guarini
Gunderson
Hell (OH)
inn (TX)
Hamilton
liammersclunidt
Hansen
Harris
Hastert
Hatcher
Hayes (LA)
Holley
November 4, 1987
Hefner Mime Shumway
Henry Mica Shuster
Herger Michel fidiaky
Hiler Miller (OH) Skeen
Hochbrueckner Molinari Skelton
Holloway Mollohan Slattery
Hopkins Montgomery Slaughter (NY)
Horton Moorhead Slaughter (VA)
Houghton Morrison (WA) Smith (FL)
Hubbard Wreak Smith (IA)
Huckaby Murphy Smith (NE)
Hughes Murtha Smith (NJ)
Hunter Myers Smith (TX)
Hutto Nagle Smith. Denny
Hyde Watcher (OR)
Inhofe Nelson Smith. Robert
Ireland Nichols (NH)
Jenkins Nielson Smith, Robert
Johnson (SD) Nowak (OR)
Jones (NC) Olin Snow*
Jones (TN) Ortiz Solomon
Kadorsid Oxley Spence
Kasieh Packard Spratt
Kleezka Panetta St Germain
Kolbe Perris Staggers
Kolter Pashayan Stallings
Konnyu Patterson Stangeland
Kyl Pepper Sienholre
Lagomarsino Petri Stratton
Lancaster Pickett Stump
Lantos Pickle Sundquist
Latta Porter Sweeney
Leach (IA) Price (IL) Swindell
Leath (TX) Price (NC) Talton
Lent Pitmen Tat*.
Lewis (CA) Quillen Terrain
Lewis (FL) Rahall Taylor
Lightfoot Ravenel Thomas (CA)
Livingston Ray Thomas (GA)
Lloyd Regula Torrieelli
Lott Rhodes Tralleant
Lowery (CA) Richardson Udall
Lu Jan Rinaldo Upton
Luken, Thomas Ritter Valentine
Lukens, Donald Roberts Vander Jut
Lungren Robinson Vollmer
Mack Roe Vucanovich
Madigan Rogers Walgren
Marlene, Rose Walker
Martin (IL) Rostenkowski Watkins
Martin (NY) Roth Weber
Martinez Roukema Weldon
Mavroules Rowland (OA) Whittaker
Mazzoli Saiki Whitten
McCandless Sawyer Wilson
McCollum Saxton Wise
McCurdy Schaefer Wolf
McDade Scheuer Wortley
McEwen Schneider Wylie
McGrath Schroeder Yatron
McHugh Schuette Young (AK)
McMillan (NC) Schulze Yaws (FL)
McMillen (MD) Sensenbrenner
Meyers Shaw
NOES-105
Ackerman Hawidas OWNS (NY)
Applegate Hayes (IL) Pease
Atkins Hertel Pelosi
AuCoin Boyer Penny
Bates Jacobs Perkins
Bellenson Jeffords Rangel
Berman Johnson (CT) Ridge
Boehlert Janie Rodin,
Bonior Kastenmeier Rowland (CT)
Boucher Kennedy Roybal
Boxer Kennelly Rumo
Brooks =dee Sabo
Bruce Kostmayer Savage
Clay Laraine lechume.r
Clinger Lehman (CA) Shays
Collins Lehman (FL) Sikorald
Conyers Leland Skaggs
Coyne Levin (Ml) Solara
Crockett Levine (CA) Stark
DePazio Lewis (GA) Stokes
Delltzrns Lowry (WA) Studds
Downey Manton Swift
Durbin Marker ersz
Dyraally Matsui Tones
Edwards (CA) McCloskey Towns
Evans Miller (CA) Trader
Rake Miller (WA) Vents
Foglietta Mind& Yin:Wm
Ford (MI) Moakley WILICIIMI
Prank Moody Weiss
Garcia Morella Wheat
Geidenson Morrison (CT) mama=
Gonzalez Neal Wane
Grandy Oberstar Wyden
Gray (PA) Obey Yates
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987
NOT VOTING-15
Blase Gephardt MacKay
Brown (C)) Howard Oskar
Crane Kaptur Owens (UT)
Daniel Kemp Roemer
Duncan Lipinski Sharp
0 1810
Messrs. EDWARDS of California,
CLINGER, BOYER, ROYBAL,
WAXMAN, OBEY, 1VLANTON,
HERTEL, and RUSSO changed their
votes from "aye" to "no."
Messrs. MARTINEZ, MAVROULES,
and ROBINSON changed their votes
from "no" to "aye."
So the amendment, as amended, was
agreed to.
The result of the vote was an-
nounced as above recorded.
AMENDMENTS OFFERED ST MR. GUNDERSON
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
offer several amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. GUNDERSON:
Page 8, after line 13, insert the following
new subsection:
(d) EXEMPTION FOR ONGOING INVESTIGA-
TIoNs.--Subject to section 7, this Act shall
not prohibit any employer from requesting
an employee to submit to a lie detector test
If?
(1) the test is administered in connection
with any ongoing investigation of criminal
or other misconduct involving, or potential-
ly involving, significant loss or injury to the
employer's business;
(2) the employee had access to any person
or property which is the subject of the in-
vestigation; and
(3) the employer has a reasonable suspi-
don that the employee was involved in the
incident or activity under investigation.
Page 8, after line 13, insert the following
new sections (and redesignate succeeding
sections accordingly):
SEC.?. RESTRICTIONS ON EXEMPTIONS.
(a) OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN
LAWS AND Acazzsourrs.?Any exemption pro-
vided under section 6 (other than subsec-
tions (a), (b), and (c) of such section) shall
not diminish an employer's obligation to
comply with?
(1) applicable State and local law, and
(2) any negotiated collective bargaining
agreement, which limit or prohibit the use
of lie detector tests on such employees.
(b) TEST MAY NOT BE SOLIS BASIS FOR AD-
VERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION.?Any such ex-
emption shall not apply unless the employer
can demonstrate that the results of an anal-
ysis of lie detector charts are not used as
the sole basis upon which an employee or
prospective employee is discharged, dis-
missed, disciplined in any manner, or denied
employment or promotion.
(c) Morn or ExAltruism?Such exemp-
tions shall not apply unless the require-
ments described in paragraphs (1), (2), and
(3) are met.
(1) PRETEST PHASIL?During the pretest
phase the prospective examinee?
(A) is provided with reasonable written
notice of the date, time, and location of the
test, and of such examinee's right to obtain
and consult with legal counsel throughout
all phases of the test;
(B) is not subjected to prolonged interro-
gation;
(C) is informed of the nature and charac-
teristics of the tests and of the instruments
involved;
(D) is informed in writing as to whether
(1) the testing area contains a two-way
mirror, a camera, or any other device
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
through which the test can be observed, or
(II) the test will involve any other device, in-
cluding any device for recording or monitor-
ing the conversation;
(E) is informed of such examinee's privi-
lege against self-incrimination under the
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of
the United States;
(F) is provided an opportunity to review
all questions (technical or relevant) to be
asked during the test and is informed of the
right to terminate the test at any time;
(CH signs a notice informing such examin-
ee of?
(I) the limitations imposed under this sec-
tion; and
(11) the legal rights and remedies available
to the examinee if the lie detector test is
not conducted in accordance with this Act.
(2) ACTUAL TESTING PHASE.?During the
actual testing phase?
(A) the examinee is not asked any ques-
tions by the examiner concerning?
(I) religious beliefs or affiliations;
(Ii) beliefs or opinions regarding racial
matters;
(iii) political beliefs or affiliations;
(iv) any matter relating to sexual behavior
or any sexual behavior of such employee or
prospective employee, unless sexual behav-
ior is specifically related to job performance
or inquiry into such behavior is required
under State law; and
(v) beliefs, affiliations, or opinions regard-
ing unions or labor organizations;
(B) the examinee is permitted to termi-
nate the test at any time;
(C) the examiner does not ask such exam-
inee any question (technical or relevant)
during the test which was not presented in
writing for review to such extuninee before
the test;
(D) the examiner does not ask technical
questions of the examinee in a manner
which is designed to embarrass, degrade, or
needlessly intrude upon the examinee; and
(E) the examiner does not conduct a test
on an examinee who, in the opinion of the
examiner, is inhibited from responding co-
herently to the test because of?
(I) mental or physical fatigue,
(ii) undue emotional stress or intoxication
due to excessive use of alcohol, sedatives,
stimulants, or tranquilizers,
(iii) addiction to narcotics,
(iv) known mental disorder, or
(v) significant physical discomfort or
physical disability that, in and of itself,
might cause abnormal responses during the
test.
(3) POST-TEST PHASE.?During the post-test
phase, the examinee?
(A) is further interviewed on the basis of
the results of the test; and
(B) is provided with a written copy of?
(i) any opinion and conclusion rendered as
a result of the test,
OD questions asked during the test, Pre-
sented along with the corresponding
charted responses, and
(iii) upon the request of the employee, a
written description of the incident or activi-
ty in connection with which the test is ad-
ministered.
(d) QUALIFICATIONS OF EXAM/MM.?Such
exemptions shall not apply unless the indi-
vidual who conducts the lie detector test?
(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) has complied with all required laws
and regulations established by licensing and
regulatory authorities in the State in which
the test is to be conducted;
(5)(A) has successfully completed a formal
training course regarding the use of lie de-
tector tests that has been approved by the
H 9579
State in which the test is to be conducted or
by the Secretary of Labor; and
(B) has completed a lie detector test in-
ternship of not leas than 6 months duration
under the direct supervbdon of an examiner
who has met the requirements of this sec-
tion;
(6) maintains a minimum of 860,000 bond-
ing or an equivalent amount of professional
liability coverage;
(7) uses an instrument that records con-
tinuously, visually, permanently, and simul-
taneously changes in the cardiovascular,
respiratory, and electrodermal patterns as
minimum instrumentation standards;
(8) bases an opinion of deception indicated
upon evaluation of changes in physiological
activity or reactivity in the cardiovascular,
respiratory, and electrodermal patterns on
the lie detector charts
(9) renders any opinion or conclusion re-
garding the test?
(A) in writing and solely on the basis of an
analysis of the lie detector charts;
(B) which does not contain information
other than admissions, information, case
facts, and interpretation of the charts rele-
vant to the purpose and stated objectives of
the test; and
(C) which does not include any recommen-
dation concerning the employment of the
examinee;
(10) does not conduct and complete more
than 6 lie detector tests on the calendar day
on which the teat is given and does not con-
duct any such test for less than a 90-minute
duration; and
(11) maintains all opinions, reports,
charts, written questions, lists, and other
records relating to the test for a minimum
period of 2 years after administration of the
test.
SEC. 8. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.
(a) IN Ogrizam..?A person, Other than the
examinee, may not disclose information ob-
tained during a lie detector test, except as
provided in this section.
(b) Pourirrzn Drectosnass.?A polygraph
examiner, polygraph trainee, or employee of
a polygraph examiner may disclose informa-
tion acquired from a lie detector test only
to?
(1) the examinee or any other person spe-
cifically designated in writing by the exam-
inee;
(2) the employer that requested the test;
Or
(3)(A) any person or any governmental
agency that requested the test, or
(B) any person, as required by due process
of law, who obtained a warrant to obtain
such information in a court of competent
jurisdiction.
(c) DiscLosuas BY Eurr.oust.?An employ-
er (other than an employer covered under
section 6(a), 6(b), or 6(c), for whom a lie de-
tector test is conducted may disclose infor-
mation from the teat only to a person de-
scribed in subsection (b).
Page 8. strike lines 16 through 22, and in-
sert the following:
(1) the term "lie detector test" includes?
(A) any examination involving the use of
any polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress
analyzer, psychological stress evaluator, or
any other similar device (whether mechani-
cal or electrical) which is used, or the re-
sults of which are used, for the purpose of
rendering a diagnostic opinion regarding the
honesty of an individual; and
(B) the testing phases described in para-
graphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 7(c);
Page 9, line 2, strike "and".
Page 9, line 5, strike the period and insert
a semicolon.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
11 9580 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Page 9, after line 5, insert the following
new subsections:
(4) the term "relevant question" (means
any lie detector teat question which pertains
directly to the matter under hmestigstion
with respect to which the examinee is being
tested; and
(5) the term "technical gumption" means
any control. symptomatic, or neutral ques-
tion which, although not relevant, is de-
signed to be used as a measure against
which relevant respomes may be measured.
Mr. GUNDERSON (during the read-
ing). Mr. Chairman, 1 ask unanimous
consent that the amendments he con-
sidered en bloc, considered as read.
and printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
(Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman.
the amendment that is now before the
House is an amendment that is being
offered by myself and the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Surrniourl jointly.
This amendment will provide and
allow the use of the polygraph for in-
vestigative testing of current employ-
ees.
/ want to make it very clear that
what we are trying to do with this par-
ticular amendment is respond both to
the legitimate needs of American busi-
ness and industry and at the same
time deal with the overuse and abuse
of the polygraph.
How do we do that? First of all, at
least 75 percent of all polygraph tests
in this country are used for preem-
ployment screening. I think most
people will agree that perhaps the big-
gest concern over the polygraph is
that It is used so extensively in preem-
ployment. When used for preemploy-
ment screening, the polygraph is First,
intimidating; and, No. 2, it tends to be
the sole determinant of whether the
job applicant is or is not hired or of-
fered that job. Yet, as we go through
the long litany of concerns here today,
we talk about the climb of the exam's
use in business.
The amendment before us. as I indi-
cated, tries to respond to the particu-
lar concerns that I think many people
have raised with regard to this legisla-
tion that is now before us. The amend-
ment does so in a way that does not
handicap or absolutely handcuff the
ability of business and industry in this
country to deal with the legitimate
threat of internal theft and crimes
within industry in this country. First
of all there is great concern about
whether or not the polygraph exami-
nation is ever accurate. I will point out
that the scientific evidence clearly
suggests, and the Office of Technology
Assessment study indicates that the
polygraph shows meaningful scientific
evidence of validity when it is focused
in the area of investigations of specific
criminal activity.
That is exactly what this amend-
ment focuses upon doing.
0 1820
In addition to that, the amendment
assures the fair conduct of polygraph
testing by providing strict regulations
on such testing that will guarantee
that any polygraph examination that
Is used under this act will protect not
only the rights of the employer but
equally the rights of the employee.
So the legislation before us is what I
would call the perfect middle ground.
No. 1, it eliminates the abuse, No. 2, It
eliminates the majority of the exams.
Over 75 percent of the exams would be
eliminated or not allowed with this
particular amendment, and yet it also
would be consistent with current gov-
ernment policies?saying if we are
going to allow the use of the poly-
graph in specific incidents and specific
cases here within the Federal Govern-
ment, we would do the same in the pri-
vate sector.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to
my colleagues in closing that this
amendment probably has broader sup-
port from the outside community than
any other amendment that has been
offered earlier today or will be offered
from here on out. It is endorsed by the
American Retail Federation which
consists of 24 different groups, by the
National Mass Retailing Institute, the
Food Marketing Institute. the Nation-
al Grocers Association, the National
Association of Chain Drug Stores, and
the National Retail Merchants Asso-
ciation.
I would also point out to my col-
leagues on the other side of the aisle
that they should be aware that many
people in the other body. including
Senator Kmrserny, believe that this ap-
proach may be the proper middle
ground. It bans the use of the poly-
graph for preemployment testing, but
it clearly allows the use of the poly-
graph, not as the sole tool, but as one
of many investigatory tools once a
person is on the job, there is a specific
incident, where that person is under
reasonable suspicion, and yea, only
when that person has a work history
already on board.
I would encourage my colleagues to
accept and support this particular
amendment. It will make the legisla-
tion in front of us much, much better.
I would also suggest it would en-
hance the chances of enactment a
great deal.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word, and I rise
In support of the amendment.
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support Of this amendment and
strongly urge my colleagues to vote for
the ClundersOn-Stenholm amendment.
If my colleagues are looking today
for an amendment that is moderate
and measured, that takes a thoughtful
and circumspect approach, that maxi-
mises the potential for beneficial poly-
graph testing while preventing abuses
November 4, 1.987
and careless procedures, this, Mr.
Chairman, is that amendment.
Far from offering a simple, hostile
amendment, we are proposing changes
that solve many of the problems cre-
ated by the shotgun approach taken
by H.R. 1212 and more than adequate-
ly address the problems that motivat-
ed the underlying bill. I commend my
friend, STEVE Ou'ingaiSON, for his hard
work and his thoroughness in develop-
ing this amendment.
This amendment removes the ran-
domness that the bill's supporters
have attacked. We would allow testing
that relates only to a specific incident
of theft, criminal activity, or other
misconduct, and would affect only
those employees under reasonable sus-
picion of involvement.
In other words, rather than use as a
prehire, screening device, our amend-
ment focuses on testing as an investi-
gative device relating only to current
employees. Moreover, Congress' own
Office of Technology Assessment has
found that the accuracy and reliability
of polygraph testing increases marked-
ly with incident-specific applications.
And there are ample regulatory pro-
tections in our amendment to prevent
the investigative device train going too
far.
First, irrelevant personal questions
are prohibited, such as those relating
to religious, political, union, or other
affiliation. All questions must pertain
to the misconduct being investigated.
Employees would be counseled in ad-
vance on exactly what questions would
be asked what procedure would be
used, and how the testing equipment
works.
Employees would be provided Imme-
diately with a copy and discussion of
test results and guaranteed complete
confidentiality.
To guarantee that all testing is done
in a thorough and deliberate manner,
each test must last at least 90 minutes
and no more than six tests could be
administered Ins single (bLy by an ex-
aminer.
Finally. unlike H.R. 1212. which ar-
bitrarily second-guesses those State
legislatures that do not find a total
polygraph ban to be in the public in-
terest, the Gundesson43tenhohn
amendment is a minimum standard?
and a high-minimum standard, at
that?and would not preempt States
from enacting stricter laws.
Thisamendment goes much more
than halfway toward meeting the con-
cerns raised by supporters of H.R.
1212. At the same time, it would do
much to allow the reasonable and con-
structive use of polygraph tests to con-
tinue protecting the property and per-
sonal safety of innocent individuals.
Mr. GRANDY. Mr. Chairman. I
move to strike the requisite number of
words and I rise in support of the
amendment
Mr. Chairman, this is the only
amendment that / intend to support
today, and I would like to speak to
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 9581
those colleagues who are inclined to
perhaps be somewhat questionable
about the outcome of H.R. 1212, who
are concerned about the polygraph
from the worker point of view and
from the businessman's point of view.
It seems to me this is the only
amendment that strikes a balance.
Prior to my addressing the Chamber,
Mr. Chairman, a Member asked does
this amendment penalize the worker
In any way. One only has to read as
far as line 3 to see that the employer
must request an employee to submit to
a test.
A Member asked me does this mean
he will be fined if he does not. It does
not mean that. The employee is pro-
tected here.
But I would say this: The Americn
Medical Association, which does not
support Young-Darden, which sup-
ports H.R. 1212, has said that it will
not support the polygraph in industry
or in the Federal agencies as a preem-
ployment test..
In the same article it said the follow-
ing: "Criminal investigations has often
benefited from polygraph usage be-
cause the investigator can focus on the
Incident in question, using it as the
basis for selecting relevant and con-
trolled questions in the application of
the test, in the full knowledge that
the detection of deception will not be
absolutely accurate." Nobody is argu-
ing that It will be, but it is closer to ac-
curacy than we will come otherwise. It
Is a management tool, one among
many.
I encourage colleagues that have not
supported any of the amendments and
will continue to vote against the ex-
emptions to vote for Gunderson-Sten-
holm. It provides an option to serve
your business constituency and to not
compromise the civil rights of Ameri-
can workers.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
My colleagues, let us be certain as to
what this amendment does. It allows
every employer in the United States to
require their employee to take a lie de-
tector test when that employee says
that there has been some incident or
other in that business.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield on that
point?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
am only going to ask the gentleman to
read lines 2 and 3. That is absolutely
not correct. "This amendment shall
not prohibit an employer from re-
questing an employee to submit to a
lie detector test." There is absolutely
no mandate in this amendment. That
is very, very important, and I appreci-
ate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Let me ask the
author of the amendment, in case I
misread his amendment, first, if he
disagrees that this covers every single
employee In the United States postin-
cident?
Mr. GUNDERSON. Absolutely.
Mr. WILLIAMS. It does cover every
employee in the United States?
Mr. GUNDERSON. If there is an in-
cident; and there is no random testing.
There has to be a specific crime.
Mr. WILLIAMS. In every industry
with no exceptions?
Mr. GUNDERSON. That is correct.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Then I have a
second question.
Mr. GUNDERSON. With one excep-
tion, if the gentleman will yield, with
one exception. We do not preempt any
State laws. Do not forget there are 41
States that have adopted their own
legislation.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; that has been
true in every amendment that has
been offered, of course. So what the
gentleman is taking exception to is my
Indication that an employer can man-
date the test to the employee?
The employee can Bay I will not take
the test. Does the gentleman's amend-
ment then protect that employee's
job?
Mr. GUNDERSON. Sure it does, be-
cause we do not allow the lie detector
to be the sole determinant. Therefore
a refusal to take a lie detector test
cannot be the basis on which one is
dismissed.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not see the lan-
guage Where the gentleman disallows
an employer from firing an employee
who refuse to take the test.
Mr. GUNDERSON. The gentleman
ean certainly see the lanugage on sole
determinant because that is on page 2,
and it states that the test may not be
the sole basis for adverse employment
action. It also puts the burden of proof
on the employer.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I appreciate the
gentleman's explanation.
So let us understand it now, an em-
ployer can request, mind you, of their
employee, every employee in America,
request them to take the lie detector
test on any incident. The incident,
niind you, does not have to be report-
ed to the pollee. The incident, in fact.
does not have to involve loss or injury
to the employer, only potential loss or
injury.
So do my colleagues see what is hap-
pening? Every employer in America, if
this passes, can claim an incident has
happened. They do not have to report
it to the police. It does not have to
become an official act on the part of
the employer. They do not even have
to demonstrate that the incident took
place or that ft created a loss to the
employer, but they can say we would
like you to volunteer. I admit the gen-
tleman has that in the amendment, we
would like you all to volunteer to take
this lie detector test.
Would my colleagues want to be the
one employee in America that does
not agree to volunteer?
This opens this bill as wide, wider,
than any amendment which has yet
been offered, and I urge my colleagues
to oppose it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendments offered by the gen,
tleman from Wisconshi (Mr. Gertallis-
SON].
The question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, /
demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were?ayes WI, noes
220, not voting It as follows:
moll No. 4111
AYES-191
Anderson Hansen
Archer Hastert
Badham Hatcher
Baker Hayes (LA)
Ballenger Hefley
Barnard Henry
Bartlett Herger
Barton Hiler
Bateman Holloway
Bentley Hopkins
Bereuter Houghton
Bilirakis Hubbard
Bliley Huckaby
Boulter Hughes
Broomfield Hunter
Buechner Hutto
Bunning Hyde
Burton Inhofe
Byron Ireland
Callahan Jeffords
Campbell Johnson (CT)
Chandler Jones (NC)
Chapman Jones (TN)
Chappell Kasich
Cheney Kolbe
Clarke Konnyu
Clinger Kyl
Coats Lagoinarsine
Coble Lancaster
Coleman (MO) Latta
Combest Leath (TX)
Cooper Lent
Courter Lewis (CA)
Craig Lewis (FL)
Dannemeyer Lightfoot
Darden Livinpteo
Daub Lloyd
de la Garza Lott
DeLay Lowery (CA)
Derrick Lujan
DeWirle Luken. Thomas
Dickinson Lukens. Deciald
DioGuardi Lungren
Dorgan (ND) Mack
Dornan (CA) MacKay
Dreier Madigan
Durbin Marlenee
Edwards (OK) Martin (IL)
Martin (NT)
McCandless
McCollum
McCurdy
McEwen
McGrath
McMillan (NC)
Mica
Michel
Miller (OH)
Molinari
Montgomery
htoorhead
Morrison (WA)
Nelson
Emerson
English
Powell
Fields
Fish
Frenzel
GalleglY
Gallo
Gekas
Gingrich
doodling
Gradison
Grandy
Grant
Gregg
Gunderson Nichols
Hall (OH) Nielson
Hall (TX) Oxley
Harnmerschmidt Packard
NOES-220
Ackerman AuCoin
Akaka Bates
Alexander Beilenson
Andrews Bennett
Annunzio Berman
Anthony Bevill
Applegate Bilbray
Aspin Boehlert
Atkins Boggs
Parris
Pashayan
Patterson
Petri
Pickett
Porter
Pursell
Quillen
Raven.'
Ray
Regula
Rhodes
Ritter
Roberts
Rogers
Roth
Roukema
Rowland (GA)
Saiki
Saxton
Schaefer
Schuette
Schulze
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shureway
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Slaughter(VA)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Denny
(OR)
Smith. Robert
(NH)
Smith, Robert
(OR)
Solomon
Spence
Sprott
Stangeland
Stenizoint
Stratton
Stump
Sundquist
Sweeney
Swindell
Tallon
Tauzin
Taylor
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (GA)
Upton
Valentine
Vander Jest
Vollmer
Vuesnovich
Walker
Weber
Weldon
Whittaker
Wolf
Wadies
Wylie
Young (FL)
Boland
Bonior
Banker -
Borski
Bono
Boucher
Boxer
Brennan
Brooks
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9582
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Brown (CA) Horton Price (IL)
Bruce Hoyer Price (NC)
Bryant Jacobs Rattail
Bustamtude Jenkins Rangel
Cardin Johnson (SD) Richardson
Carper Jontz Ridge
Carr Kanjorski Rinaldo
Clay Kasteruneler Robinson
Coelho Kennedy Rodino
Coleman (TX) Kennelly Roe
Collins Kildee Rose
Conte Kleczka Rostenkowski
Conyers Kolter Rowland (CT)
Coyne Kostmayer Roybal
Crockett Lank* Russo
Davis (IL) Lantos Sabo
Davis (MI) Leach (IA) Savage
DeFazio Lehman (CA) Sawyer
Dellums Lehman (PL) Scheuer
Dicks Leland Schneider
Dingell Levin (MI) Schumer
Dixon Levine (CA) Shays
Donnelly Lewis (GA) Sikorski
Dowdy Lowry (WA) Skaggs
Downey Manton Skelton
Dwyer Markey Slattery
DYmallY Martinez Slaughter (NY)
Dyson Matsui Smith (FL)
Early Mavroules Smith (IA)
Eckart Marmon Smith (NJ)
Edwards (CA) McCloskey Snowe
Erdreich McDade Solaris
Espy McHugh St Germain
Evans McMillen (MD) Staggers
Fascell Meyers Stallings
Fazio Mfume Stark
Feighan Miller (CA) Stokes
Flake Miller (WA) Studds
Flippo Mineta Swift
Florio Moakley Synar
Foglietta Mollohan Tauke
Foley Moody Torres
Ford (MI) Morella Torricelli
Ford (TN) Morrison (CT) Towns
Frank Mrazek Tralicant
Frost Murphy Traxler
Garcia Murtha Udall
Gaydos Myers Vento
Gejdenson Nagle Visclosky
Gibbons Matcher Walgren
Gilman Neal Watkins
Glickman Nowak Waxman
Gonzales Dakar Weiss
Gordon Oberstar Wheat
Gray (IL) Obey Whitten
Gray (PA) Olin Williams
Green Ortiz Wilson
Guarini Owens (NY) Wise
Hamilton Panetta Wolpe
Harris Pease Wyden
Hawkins Pelosi Yates
Hayes (IL) Penny Yatron
Hefner Pepper Young (AK)
Hertel Perkins
Hochbrueckner Pickle
Armey
Biaggi
Brown (CO)
Coughlin
Crane
Daniel
NOT VOTING-16
Duncan
Gephardt
Howard
Kaptur
Kemp
Lipinski
Owens (UT)
Roemer
Schroeder
Sharp
0 1835
Mr. TALLON changed his vote from
"no" to
So the amendments were rejected.
The result of the vote was an-
nounced as above recorded.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY M. BARTLETT
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bswn.arr: On
page 7, line 1, strike "United States Govern-
ment," and insert in lieu thereof the follow-
ing: "United States Government, except for
the Congress of the United States insofar as
it is engaged in functions not directly relat-
ed to national security as determined by
such Congress,".
Mr. ACKERMAN (during the read-
ing). Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right
to object.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, a
point of order. There is no unanimous-
consent request before the House.
Mr. ACKERMAN'. Mr. Chairman, I
make a point of order that the amend-
ment is not germane.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's
request will be addressed at the proper
time as soon as the Clerk has reported
the amendment.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk concluded the reading of
the amendment,.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I
reserve a point of order on the amend-
ment.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment that would essen-
tially unexempt Congress as an em-
ployer from the exemption that is in
this bill. This bill provides a prohibi-
tion of the use of polygraph examina-
tions in all cases for all employers in
private industry within this bill, in all
cases whether it is preemployment or
postemployment.
This bill however exempts Congress
as an employer and would say?the
irony of the bill today is that it would
say that even though we would pro-
hibit nursing home operators from
using a polygraph examination as a
screening tool ,or as a determinate
device, even though we would prohibit
other industries in other sensitive
areas from the same thing, such as
day care centers and others, we would
continue to permit Congress as an em-
ployer to use a polygraph in preem-
ployment screening and in post-em-
ployment-incident testing.
Now this issue came up earlier in the
debate and it was during the debate
that several examples of polygraphs
that are used by Congress as an em-
ployer were interjected into the
debate, at which point the sponsor of
the legislation, the very honorable
gentleman from Montana, announced
that he would support the inclusion of
Congress in this prohibition so as to
prohibit Congress also from using the
polygraph.
0 1900
The sponsor of the bill, however,
had not included that prohibition of
Congress in his original bill. So the
House by its vote tonight will be able
to include the prohibition of the use
of the polygraph on Congress as an
employer, just the same as we would
prohibit all other employers in the
country from using the polygraph.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTLETT. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Pennsylvania, who origi-
nally brought this subject to the at-
tention of the House.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
Do I understand correctly now that
if we pass the bill in the form that it is
November 4, 1987
at present, we will be specifically
saying that while employers cannot
use polygraph techniques, we in Con-
gress will be able to continue to use
them just as we are now using them in
the Capitol Police force in order to
interview applicants and check their
applications? Is that the gentleman's
understanding?
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman is correct. Indeed we could
and no doubt would continue to use
the polygraph in the House restaurant
system, in our offices, and for commit-
tee staff and for other locations.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield further?
Mr. BARTLETT. I yield further to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALKER So we will have made
a decision as a Congress that nursing
home operators cannot use it, but in
our House restaurant system or in our
Capitol Police force we can use it. It
will be one more case where the hy-
procrisy of Congress would be very evi-
dent, that we require Of others that
which we are not willing to do on our
own?
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman is correct.
Mr. WALKER Mr. Chairman, I find
that most disturbing, and I find it very
disturbing based upon the discussion
that the gentleman mentioned, that
we would now have a point of order
raised against this amendment, be-
cause what we have now is another sit-
uation where, while during debate the
sponsors of the legislation indicate,
"Oh, yes,, that sounds like a wonderful
idea," they have this nice little gim-
mick of points of order, and the major-
ity then comes back and says, "Oh,
but I'm sorry, you can't offer that par-
ticular amendment."
I find it very disturbing that we will
find ways to make certain that Con-
gress is exempted from that which we
are requiring of the rest of the coun-
try.
Mr. BARTLETT. The gentleman is
correct. I have served on the Educa-
tion and Labor Committee now for 5
years, and what happens is that when
we have a bill in Congress that applies
to employers, either I or someone on
the committee offers an amendment
to apply that provision to Congress as
an employer, and that amendment is
ruled nongermane because it is not
within our committee's jurisdiction.
So we bring the bill onto the floor,
and when that amendment is within
the jurisdiction of the Congress as a
whole, then we are told, "No, you can't
offer that amendment because it has
to go through the comnittee." So it is
not germane in the committee because
it has not gone to the floor, and it is
not germane on the floor because it
has not gone to the committee.
The gentleman is correct. This is not
the first time that has happened. It is
a catch-22 kind of trick to make sure
that Congress exempts itself from all
the laws we pass for everyone else.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield further?
POINTS OF 011DER
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chair-
man, I have a point of order.
The gentlemen are engaged in their
own colloquy over there. They are not
addressing the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Pond will state
his point of order.
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chair-
man, the gentlemen are out of order.
They are not addressing the point of
order. They are have an interesting
discussion on the practices and proce-
dures of the House.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
has failed to note that no point of
order has been interjected.
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chair-
man. the point of order has been re-
served, and the gentleman was asked
to explain his language.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Baarterrl, the
author of the amendment, has yielded
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. WALKER] during his 5-minute ex-
planation of the amendment.
Mr. FORD of Michigan. The Chair
does not recognize that there is a res-
ervation of a point of order pending at
this time?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from New York (Mr. ACKERMAN] is
standing on his feet with his reserva-
tion. Nevertheless he has not inter-
posed a point of order as yet. He has
merely reserved a point of order.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman,
given the hour, I yield back the bal-
ance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Texas (Mr. BARTLETT] yields back
the balance of his time, and the Chair
will inquire, does the gentleman from
New York (Mr. ACKERMAN] Still wish
to reserve his point of order?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman. I
will state my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will
hear the gentleman.
0 1905
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I
wish to pursue my point of order.
It appears to me that the amend-
ment is not germane, because it broad-
ens the scope of the coverage to Gov-
ernment employees: and at the
present time, the bill only covers the
Private sector.
The CHAIRMAN. Has the gentle-
man concluded his statement?
Mr. ACKERMAN. It is as simple as
that, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
man from Texas wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. BARI'LETT. Mr. Chairman, I do
wish to be heard on the point of order.
Mr. Chairman. I would cite in the
rules of the House in section 10.10 on
page 579 the rule of the House that
states the following:
"To a bill extending benefits to a
certain class of employees, an amend-
ment to extend those benefits to an
additional category of employees
within that class is germane"--is ger-
mane.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment takes
the bill which extends to a class of em-
ployees which is cited in the definition
in the bill on page 6, line 23, defining
the term "employer" as all employers.
The sponsor of the bill listed the
language directly out of the Fair
Labor Standards Act amendments
which includes all employers in this
country, public and private alike.
I then would extend under rule 10.10
an amendment to extend those bene-
fits to an additional category of em-
ployees within the class that is con-
tained in the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I have an additional
point as to why the amendment is in
order in addition to the first one in
this form: and that is that this amend-
ment is to section 6, the exemptions.
The bill has established a class of
employees of all employees, and then
exempted all Government employees
from that class.
I would then very narrowly remove a
portion of the exemption as the cate-
gory within the class that is being ex-
empted, so if the bill exempts all Gov-
ernment employees, then the Congress
can remove part of that exemption.
Either the exemption section is out
of order, or my amendment is out of
order.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I wish
to be heard on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
man from New York wish to be heard
further on the point of order?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman,
the operative words that we just heard
here were not employees but rather
"class of employees."
As described in the proposed legisla-
tion, the class pertains to private-
sector employees, thereby exempting
the entire class of public-sector em-
ployees.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I wish
to be heard on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania Is recognized for
that purpose.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, /
would hope the point of order would
not be sustained.
If the Chair will examine the bill,
the Chair will find in section 6 of the
bill that there is indeed an exemption
for all Government employees, and
this was done to make certain the bill
was sent only to the Committee on
Education and Labor.
On page 7 of the bill, the Chair
would find under part (2), (AXI) any
individual employed by, or assigned or
detailed to, the National Security
Agency or the Central Intelligence
Agency: and in the bill itself they
begin the process of defining certain
Government employees.
The only people who can be em-
ployed by or particularly detailed are
a class of certain Government employ-
ees, so in this bill we have defined eer-
9583
thin Government employees that we
single out for special treatment.
All the gentleman from Texas is
doing is singling out another group of
people who the gentleman Is saying
should not be exenipted, so therefore,
because the bill was broadened by the
language on page 7, it is this gentle-
man's interpretation that the Chair
should rule against the point of order
raised by the gentleman from New
York, because the bill already classi-
fies Government employees in the
same way that the gentleman from
Texas seeks to classify Government
employees.
TheCHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
man from New York wish to further
discuss the point of order?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I
call for the ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will
inform the gentleman from New York
that that is within the discretion of
the Chair, and the Chair is most anx-
ious to get all aspects of the argu-
ments on the point of order.
Does the gentleman from Texas
wish to be heard further?
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I
rely on the fairness of the Chair, and
the fairness of my fellow Texan.
What constitutes a class, I call to the
Chair's attention page 3, section 3,
lines 2 and 3 of the bill, in which the
bill clearly establishes the class of em-
ployers that are covered.
The class of employers that are cov-
ered is established by the following
one eentenee:
"It shall be unlawful for any em-
ployer engaged in commerce or in the
production of goods for commerce
? ?
The bill then later narrows, or takes
that class and removes one category of
that class. Therefore, my amendment
Is in order, because it applies to the
same class that the bill covers; that is,
any employer engaged in commerce or
in the production of goods for com-
merce.
I rest on the Chairman's good judg-
ment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
man from New York have any addi-
tional remarks by way of argument?
Mr. ACKERMAN. We await the de-
cision of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. GONZALEZ).
The Chair has carefully evaluated the
arguments, having anticipated the
same, and wishes to state that with
reference to the citation that the gen-
tleman from Texas (Mr. BARTLETT] re-
ferred to, section 10.16 chapter 28 of
the Procedures in the Rime, the gen-
tleman did not emphasise, and the
Chair will read, "to a bill extending
benefits to a certain class of employ-
ees, an amendment to extend those
benefits to an additional category of
employees within that chum is ger-
mane."
Obviously, the Chair cannot select a
narrow reading of one port of the bill,
as the gentleman from Texas has just
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9584
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE November 4, 1987
done, but must consider the bill as a
whole.
In doing so, we find that both the
thrust of the bill, as well as the report
accompanying the bill explaining the
bill, clearly define the range and scope
of coverage to the private sector.
In the case of exemptions as put
forth on page 14 of the report, section
6 exempts all governmental employers,
whether Federal, State, local or a po-
litical subdivision.
This section consistent with this ex-
emption also provides a rule of con-
struction with respect to private-sector
employers doing counterintelligence or
intelligence work with the CIA, DOD,
DOE atomic energy defense activities,
FBI and NSA.
Clearly, the committee was trying to
stay within the limits of its jurisdic-
tion by attempting to legislate for the
private sector employer/employee,
and trying to stay within the limita-
tions imposed by prior legislation by
the Congress in which it had legislated
with respect to the Defense Depart-
ment, intelligence community and the
like, so therefore, the Chair is pre-
pared to rule that in light of the fact
that intentionally, or unintentionally,
the amendment of the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. BARTLETT] would in
effect do by indirection what cannot
be done by direction, and therefore, is
not in keeping with Jefferson's
Manual and the citations following
the germaneness rules, as well as
Deschler's procedure, chapter 28, sec-
tion 709 which clearly prohibits broad-
ening of exemptions in cases such as
this. Therefore, the Chair is compelled
to sustain the point of order raised by
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Texas be
made in order.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I
object.
Mr. WALKER. Could the Chair
state who made the objection?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, on
the basis that the decision was left at
the discretion of the Chair, and I
would not allow anything that I can
do while I am on my feet to impinge
upon the discretion of the Chair as
has been granted to the Chair, I will
object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard
to the unanimous consent request.
Are there other amendments to sec-
tion 6?
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MRS. VUCANOVICH
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman,
I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. VIICANOVICH:
Page 8, after line 13, add the following new
subsection:
(d) EXEMPTION FOR PIANANCIAL INBTITII-
TI0NS.-(1) Subject to paragraph (3), this
Act shall not prohibit the use of a lie detec-
tor test or employees or prospective employ-
ees of a financial institution (as such term
Is defined in section 5313(aX2) of title 31,
United States Code, and as further defined
In section 103.11(g) of title 31 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as in effect on the date
of the enactment of this Act).
(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 the results of
an analysis of lie detector charts are used as
the sole basis upon which an employee or
prospective employee is discharged, dis-
missed, disciplined in any manner, or denied
employment or promotion. Nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed to prohibit
the temporary reassignment of any employ-
ee for such period as is necessary for a
speedy and thorough investigation concern-
ing potential criminal activity with involves
the operations of the employer.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH (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 gentlewoman
from Nevada?
There was no objection.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent to limit the
debate on this amendment to 10 min-
utes, 5 minutes on each side.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
California?
Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.
The gentlewoman from Nevada
[Mrs. VIICANOVICH] is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman,
my amendment is simple?to exempt
financial institutions from restrictions
against the use of polygraphs, with
"financial institution" being defined as
under title 31 of the United States
Code, section 5312(a), subject to cur-
rency transaction regulations as fur-
ther defined under 31 Code of Federal
Regulations, part 103.
As we all know, the reporting re-
quirements for these financial institu-
tions are very strict, and failure to
comply or errors in reporting subject
the institution to severe civil and
criminal penalties. For this reason, it
is critical that these financial institu-
tions be exempt from the ban against
polygraphs. Without the use of the
polygraph, they are at tremendous
risk. It is essential that employees who
handle large sums of money make the
transaction properly. There is a terrif-
ic burden on financial institutions, and
their accountability is vital.
One of the purposes of the strict
currency reporting regulations for fi-
nancial institutions is to help track
down drug traffickers. In the last con-
gress we reinforced this goal when we
passed the Omnibus Drug Enforce-
ment Act of 1986, which strengthened
the currency reporting provisions.
Financial institutions handle enor-
mous sums of money every day, and
many people have access to these
funds. Embezzlement and internal
fraud cause billions of dollars in losses
each year. In fact, the losses amount
to more than losses from robberies,
burglaries, and larcenies combined.
Use of. the polygraph as an investiga-
tive tool is absolutely essential to
these entities.
This amendment is critical to con-
stituents in each and every one of our
districts. Do you have loan or finance
companies in your district? Is there a
Western Union- office there? A jewel-
er? The polygraph can make the dif-
ference in whether or not they stay in
business.
The toll extracted due to internal
theft in these businesses is great.
These losses cause many businesses to
close their doors, resulting in unem-
ployment for many workers. The
losses are also reflected in higher costs
for consumers, as employers raise
prices on goods and services to recoup
their losses.
Unquestionably, there are places and
occasions where polygraph testing is
vital. This body officially acknowl-
edged its legitimacy in the last Con-
gress and again more recently when
we overwhelmingly endorsed the use
of polygraph testing for national secu-
rity purposes.
We cannot acknowledge the useful-
ness?the essential role of polygraph
testing as a legitimate and effective
tool for the Government to use, and
Yet deny its credibility and efficacy for
the private sector. Obviously, the poly-
graph test has a proper place in both
Government and private business.
0 1920
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is a rewrite of an
amendment that just a couple hours
ago the House rejected by a vote of
184 to 237, only this time the exemp-
tion is even wider than the exemption
that the House has already rejected.
The gentlewoman's amendment
refers to financial institutions as de-
fined in section 5312(aX2) of title 31 of
the United States Codes. Let me share
with the House the definition of finan-
cial institutions under that section:
All insured banks, all commercial banks,
all trust companies, all private banks, all
thrift Institutions, all brokers or dealers in
securities, all operators of credit card sys-
tems, all insurance companies, all pawn bro-
kers, all loan companies, all travel agencies,
all telegraph companies.
Those are the definitions of a finan-
cial institution.
The gentlewoman also refers to a
certain regulation of law which in-
cludes all casinos or gambling casinos.
This amendment would include every
person in the United States literally
who works in a financial institution,
Including pawn brokers, insurance
companies, and people that make
credit cards.
This is an extremely broad amend-
ment and one which myself and the
committee wholeheartedly oppose.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. ST GERMAIN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word. I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment
when compared to the amendment
that was previously defeated that had
reference to federally insured finan-
cial institutions, that was bad enough,
but my God, here we are going to
impose this upon branches of foreign
banks. They are not federally insured.
I mean, I cannot believe the scope of
this amendment. Very frankly, in
keeping with the consideration of the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. BARTLETT]
earlier when he recognized the hour, I
would say this amendment is one
whose hour has not arrived and it
should be summarily dismissed, as was
done with the previous amendment re-
ferring to financial institutions.
Mr. Chairman, I would call for a
"no" vote on this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
woman from Nevada [Mrs. VIJCANO-
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DELAY
Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. DELAY: Page
8, after line 13, insert the following new sub-
sections:
(d) EXEMPTION FOR SERVICES CONDUCTED IN
PERSONAL RESIDENCES.?This Act shall not
prohibit the use of a lie detector test by an
employer whose business- consists of provid-
ing services in private residences and whose
employees obtain west to such residences,
to the extent thet?
(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 by such em-
ployer;
(2) the test is administered only to em-
ployees who have, or prospective employees
who would have, reasonable access to the
private residence of any customer of the em-
ployer; and
(3) the results of an analysis of lie detec-
tor charts are not used as the sole basis
upon which any employee or prospective
employee is discharged, dismissed, disci-
plined in any manner, or denied employ-
ment or promotion.
Mr. DELAY (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous 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
Texas?
There was no objection.
[Mr. DELAY addressed the Commit-
tee. His remarks will appear hereafter
in the Extensions of Remarks.]
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Texas has expired.
The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. DELsy].
The question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, I
demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were?ayes 147, noes
268, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 412]
AYES-147
Archer Hansen Pickett
Armey Hastert Porter
Badham Hatcher Quillen
Baker Haley Ravenel
Ballenger Herger Ray
Bartlett Miler Rhodes
Barton Holloway Roberts
Bateman Hopkins Rogers
Bennett Hubbard Roth
Bereuter Hunter Rowland (GA)
Bilirakis Hutto Salk'
Bliley Hyde Saxton
Boulter Inhofe Schaefer
Broomfield Ireland Schuette
Bryant Kasich Schulze
Bunning Konnyu Sensenbrenner
Burton Kyl Shaw
Byron Lagomarsino Shumway
Callahan Latta Shuster
Chandler Leath (TX) Skeen
Chappell Lewis (FL) Slaughter (VA)
Cheney Lightfoot Smith (NE)
Coats Livingston Smith (TX)
Coble Lott Smith, Denny
Combest Lowery (CA) (OR)
Craig Lujan Smith, Robert
Dasmemeyer Lukens, Donald (NH)
Darden Lungren Smith, Robert
Daub Mack (OR)
de la Garza Madigan Solomon
DeLay Marlenee Spence
DeWine Martin (IL) Stangeland
Dickinson Martin (NY) Stenholm
DioGuardi McCandless Stump
Dornan (CA) McCollum Sundquist
Dreier McEwen Sweeney
Edwards (OK) McMillan (NC) Swindall
Emerson Meyers Tauzin
F'awell Mica Taylor
Fields Michel Thomas (CA)
Frenzel Miller (OH) Thomas (GA)
GalleglY Montgomery Valentine
Gekas Morrison (WA) Vander Jest
Gingrich Myers Vucanovich
Goodling Nelson Walker
Gmdison Nichols Weldon
Grant Oxley Whittaker
Hall (OH) Packard Wolf
Hall (TX) Parris Wylie
Hammerschmidt Pashayan Young (FL)
NOES-268
Ackerman Carper Edwards (CA)
Akaka Carr English
Alexander Chapman Erdreich
Anderson Clarke Espy
Andrews Clay Evans
Annunzio Clinger Fascell
Anthony Coelho Fazio
Applegate Coleman (MO) Feighan
Aspin Coleman (TX) Fish
Atkins Collins Flake
AuCoin Conte Flippo
Barnard Conyers Florio
Bates Cooper Foglietta
Beilenson Coughlin Foley
Bentley Courter Ford (MI)
Berman Coyne Ford (TN)
Bevill Crockett Frank
Bilbmy Davis (IL) Frost
Boehlert Davis (MI) Gallo
Boggs DeF'azio Garcia
Boland Delluma Gaydos
Bonior Derrick Gellienson
Honker Dicks Gilman
Borski Dingell Gllclunan
BOSCO Dixon Gonzalez
Boucher Donnelly Gordon
Boxer Dorgan (ND) Grandy
Brennan Dowdy Gray (IL)
Brooks Downey Gray (PA)
Brown (CA) Durbin Green
Bruce Dwyer Gregg
Buechner Dymally Guarini
Bustamante Dyson Gunderson
Campbell Early Hamilton
Cardin Eckart Harris
Hawkins Minnie
Hayes (IL) Miller (CA)
Hayes (LA) Miller (WA)
Hefner Mineta
Henry Moakley
Hertel Molinari
Hochbrueckner Mollohan
Horton Moody
Houghton Moorhead
Hoyer Morella
Huckaby Morrison (CT)
Hughes Mrazek
Jacobs Murphy
Jeffords Murtha
Jenkins Nagle
Johnson (CT) Hatcher
Johnson (SD) Neal
Jones (TN) Nielson
Jontz Nowak
Kanjorski Oakar
Kastenmeier Oberstar
Kennedy Obey
Kennelly Olin
Kildee Ortiz
Kleczka Owens (NY)
Kolbe Panetta
Kolter Patterson
Kostmayer Pease
LaFalce Pelost
Lancaster Penny
Lantos Pepper
Leach (IA) Perkins
Lehman (CA) Petri
Lehman (FL) Pickle
Leland Price (IL)
Lent Price 'NC)
Levin (MI) Purcell
Levine (CA) Rattail
Lewis (GA) Rangel
Lloyd Regula
Lowry (WA) Richardson
Luken, Thomas Ridge
MacKay Rinaldo
Manton Ritter
Markey Robinson
Martinez Rodin?
Matsui Roe
Mavroules Rase
Masson Rostenkowski
McCloskey Roukema
McCurdy Rowland (CT)
McDade Roybal
McGrath Russo
McHugh Sabo
McMillen (MD) Savage
H 9585
Sawyer
Scheuer
Schneider
Schroeder
Schumer
Shays
Sikorski
Sielsky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter (NY)
Smith (FL)
Smith (IA)
Smith (NJ)
Snowe
Solam
Spratt
St Germain
Staggers
Stallings
Stark
Stokes
Stratton
Studds
Swift
Synar
Tallon
Tauke
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Traxler
Upton
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walgren
Watkins
Waxman
Weber
Weiss
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
WolPe
Wortley
Wyden
Yates
Yatron
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING-18
Biaggi Gibbons Lipinski
Brown (CO) Howard Owens (UT)
Crane Jones (NC) Roemer
Daniel KaPtur Sharp
Duncan Kemp Udall
Gephardt Lewis (CA) Vento
0 1945
Mr. PORTER changed his vote from
"no" to
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was an-
nounced as above recorded.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentle-
man from Texas (Mr. BARTLErT] for
the purposes of entering into a collo-
quy with the gentleman from Mon-
tana [Mr. Wn.usus].
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Montana [Mr. Wumasts] has seen a
copy of the colloquy. What I would do
is just read an abbreviated version of
the questions and answers, Mr. Chair-
man, and enter the entire colloquy
into the REcoan at the conclusion of
that abbreviated version.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must
advise our distinguished colleague
from Texas [Mr. BARTLETT] that collo-
quies may not be entered in the
REcoan according to the rules during
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
11 9586
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
CONGRESSIONAL IMMO HOUSE hi:member 4, 1 987
deliberatiens in the Committee of the
Whole.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I
would intitdre of the gentleman from
Montana and would like to ask hirn, a
few questions concerning the meaning
of the term lie detector as used in the
bill in order to clarify what is and
what is not included in the definition.
I ask the gentleman if the definition
of He detector as contained in the bill
before us would in any way be inter-
preted to include drug testa within its
scope?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARTINEZ. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Montana.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I
answer my friend from Texas by
saying that if itis understanding is
that the Modified definition of lie,ife-
tector dosenot include tests which ore
administered to detect the presenceur
absence Of a drug hi a person's body,
the gentleman is correct. As the gen-
tleman knows, the original definon
of lie detector was never intended to
include drug testing. Nevertheless. I
did not object to the aratt
added in committee) which further
clarified that drug tests were not in-
cluded Within the scope Of the mean-
ing of the term lie detector.
I am not expregging an opinion en
whether or not I am for drug testing,
but that le not the purpose of this leg-
islation.
Mr. BARTLETT. I thank the gentle-
man.
The definition still includes the tenn
"mechanical or electrical devices." Be-
cause of that, some have argued that
it could be breed enonigh to include
routine preemployment or employ-
ment physical examinations, thus pro-
hibiting niest entpfoyeni from adminis-
tering Rob examinations. Does the
definition include employment iund
preemployment physical examina-
tions?
Mr. WILLIAMS. The answer is no.
Mr. BARTLETT. I thank the gentle-
man for the colloquy.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further
amendments to section 67
If not, the C2erk will designate sec-
tion T.
The text Of section 7 is as follows:
SRC. 7. IIIIPVIMONS.
Mused in this ME?
M the term "lie detector test" includes
any examination involving the use of any
polygraph, deceptorraph, voice stress shit-
peyeliofegkal Areas evaluator. er any
other sharer Maim (Whether mechanical or
electrical) basites is used, or Use sessile of
which are deed, for the purpose of reader-
ins a diapaostic opinion regarding the hon-
esty of an individual-.
(2) the term "employer includes an
agent, independent contractor, employee, or
any other person acting diseody sr isidirect-
ly in the Mitered of an employer in relation
to an employee or prospective employee;
and
(37 the term "cot:amerce' has the meaning
provided by /tenon 'NW, or the Pair Leber
StandlueloAet of 1938 (811 VAC, 203(10).
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any
amendments to section I?
If not, the Cledt will designate sec-
tion 8.
The text Or section bin as follows:
sise. MMus ang
This Act shall take effect ?onths after
the date of its enoctisent.
AMENDMENT IN TM MEOW OF A SUBSTITUTE
OFFERED-BY MR. YOUNG OF FLORIDA
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I otter an amendment in the
nature-oft substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the mature of a substitute
offered by Mr. Tomas of Florida: Strike all
after the-enacting cisme and insert the fol-
lowing:
SHORT TITLE
Sacrum 1, This Act may be cited as the
"Polyerapfriteform Actor 1987".
POLYGRAPH IOLANOMATIONS
Sac. 2. Th Fair Labor Standards Act. of
1934 MEC. alien) is emended?
(1) by inserting above the heading of Sec-
tion 2 the followiniC
"TITIS 1-FAIR LA13011STANDANDS":
Mb, striking out "inn Act" each place it
anthems (other than in the first section) and
inserting-in lieu thereof 'lids title"; and
(I) by adding at the end thereof the fol-
lowing new title:
-TITLE II?POLTGRAPH
EXAMINATIONS
"usual:ions on retz tenor POLYGRAPH
EXAMENATIONS
"Sac. MI. (a) Ihtless the examininion is
given in neeerdanCenitis section $2, no em-
ployer or any other perms engaged in or-af-
fecting Commerce, nor, AAP agent or repre-
sentative thereof may? .
(1) directly or indimetty require, ratpiest,
seggest, peewit, or cense any eraPioree,
agent, preineetive employee, or prospective
agent to take or submit to any polygraph
exanthuttiOls for any purpose; or
"(2) use, *wept, or refer to the results of
any polygraph examinotion of any employ-
ee, agent,. poospective employee, or prospec-
tive seemlier any purpose.
"UN Pi& employer May discharge, dionibts,
discipline, or deny omploytnent or promo-
tion to; or- threaten to discharge, dismiss,
discipline, or deny employment or promo-
tion to easy employee, anni4 prospective em-
ployee, or poespectiVe agent who reror-Pe.? de-
clines, milails.to take or submit to any poly-
graph examination.
"(c) No employer map discharge, disusies,
discipline, or dent emplogonent or promo-
tion to; or threaten to ctilicharge, dhotis,
discipline, or deny employment of promo-
tion to; an employee or applicant. based
solely on the opinions or conclusions of a
polygraph examiner sesehnd by analysis of
the moults of a polygraph examination of
the eirtployee or applicant for employment
given in accordance with section 202. If a
polygraph examiner concludes, based on an
analysis of the results of a polygraph exami-
nation given in accordance with section 202,
that an employee or ape/leant for employ-
ment was diceptire, the employee or appli-
cant for employment meet be provided an
opportunity to rebut such conclusion.
"MUUMUU STANBARD&FOR CONDUCTING
POBYGRAPH EIBISINATIONS
"Site. NHL (a) The Secretary shall estab-
lish standards of conduct mad qualifications
for penitent who wish to conduct polygraph
examinations. The stioda.rds shall include
the requirements set forth in subsections
(b) throng:kik).
"tin Subject ? to erabseetien -(r). -no. poly-
graphessminotionshall condoethiapon
Individual mina
"(1) Is at Xeast twenty. one yeareof agog..
- "(2) is a titian, of the United /Rat%
-Chia a penes of good mond character:
"(inhaseortaillied with an required laws,
roles, and regulations established by the
Secretary mei ether polygraph licensing
and resalatteay authorities in She state in
which the otionsinetiongs to be' conducted:
and
"axA) has suqeemfidly Completed a
Donisl training mune retarding the use of
eabitraolts that has been nairoved under
(4) Acme or in-the Secretary: and
? NM. has eempiefid'a polygraph examiner
hitenship of SCIalgt six months dtuation
under the direct supervision of a?polymaph
examinee who has met the requirements of
thiosectiem ,
"(a) The. Secretor)) shall eetatehh stand-
ards ilerendeg inAviduels, who, on the date-
of enactment Of the Polninieli_lteSorin Act
of hart *e Madified te eotaiect polygraph
examinant:an 4a itinatioriee With applieuhle
Rate fad. Shritsinutiterattlit not be/attu-
ned namely Igloos& sus indisidual has con-
ducted a Sceared sinsibor analysing* ex-
aminations in the past.
"(dXli When conducting-a polwaraph cx-
a Polygraph examiner may not
ask liesestimi durn the ode* taaraina-
. dme Watiedam Win totting and
has been reviewed witntito intriannee prior
to such examiestime-
"(2) A. polygraph- examiner may not in-
quire info-6: ? ? " ?
"(A) rellgionsteneis or affelationx
"(3) racial beliefs or (Winona -
"tcl Polittind bdieharaffillehotar
-aft ?sentat preferences ..'er 'arthritis,
Wear 'such .friforialition imainitag sexual
'.Pretiatenceli_.i:ets *Miner:11y State
line,er Metrelisted:or
mtEl benefit affiliathinx ,er dendtiris 're-
garding unions or labor Orgiodiartiaria.
"(e Xi) Each prospeettreexaminorldiall be
required '03 Idris /Kam bet** the begin-
ning of -each Potimaifir.exemination that
the examinee understands?
Nal the limitations impaired oil potygraph
examine:win subentirsertdX
-(3) that the examinee may terminate the
enaminationat row dam
and
-WI that . (hir menninee has legal rights
and remedies irtheneerfesale intemination
is not condoned; or ? liersesells at' the' ex-
aminations are not used, in acondaneewith
this title. -
'I2) Wee* oxarnines slime be presided with
a *Men copy or any opinion or conchasion
rendered, siea rI et the- emealnation
aeon antlers remelt by-the enandney lord
upon payment of & rearsinablik fee ay such
"(L) A oelyeraisn examiner May not, In
an,v calendar day, Fondue& . and complete
more then ten Pellittenti elninlinations
which are Buhl* O the rVuirenments of
this title. A milystrapit subject
to the noidiation et. this aubseetion shall
consist of a full and complete pretest inter-
view, recording of litentelogica chart data,
analysi& of recorded chart:data, and post-
test interview fts required. The examiner
shall schedule not 'less' than one hour to
conduct air exatignation. of 'an examinee as
did hied to thisiatbseetitua
"(sal) Each volturesth etiondliessludi?
"(A) use an lastrinneet. that records con-
tinuously. visually. permanently. and simul-
taneous/it- change* in dirdiorasculax respi-
ratory, and electrodermal mitten* Ur mini-
mum Inetrinointtatfintstandaidentid
NB) timegnepbtlett dedgeeptilitillidleat-
ed or no deception indiesdeek upon maim-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
tion of changes in physiological activity or
reactivity in the cardiovascular, respiratory,
and electrodermal patterns on the poly-
graph charts.
"(2) A polygraph examiner may use an in-
strument that records additional physiologi-
cal patterns as specified in paragraph (1)
and may consider such additional patterns
in furnishing an opinion.
"(h) All conclusions or opinions of the
polygraph examiner arising from a poly-
graph examination shall?
"(1) be in writing and based solely upon
polygraph chart analysis;
"(2) contain no information other than
admissions, information, case facts, and in-
terpretation of the chart data relevant to
the purpose and stated objectives of the ex-
amination; 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) Any polygraph examiner conducting a
polygraph examination shall acquire and
maintain a minimum of $50,000 bonding or
an equivalent amount of professional liabil-
ity insurance coverage.
"(k) An employer may not use voice stress
analyzers, psychological stress evaluators or
any other similar device for the purpose of
detecting deception or verifying the truth of
statements. An employer may not use or
cause to be used any such device (as de-
scribed in this subsection) with any employ-
ee or prospective employee interview, or use
or cause to be used any recording which at
any time is subjected to analysis by any
voice stress analyzer, psychological stress
evaluator, or any other similar device, the
results of which are reported to any employ-
er.
"DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
"SEC. 203. (a) A person, other than an ex-
aminee, may not disclose information ob-
tained during a polygraph examination,
except as provided in this section.
"(b) A polygraph examiner may disclose
information acquired from a polygraph ex-
amination only to?
"(1) another polygraph examiner in pri-
vate consultation, the examinee, or any
other person or firm specifically designated
in writing by the examinee;
"(2) the employer that requested the ex-
amination;
"(3) a person or governmental agency that
requested the examination or others as re-
quired by due process of law who obtained a
warrant to obtain such information in a
court of competent jurisdiction; or
"(4) appropriately licensed or chartered
polygraph licensing boards or polygraph pro-
fessional associations upon written request
in connection with a complaint filed against
an examiner pursuant to a grievance proce-
dure.
"(c) An employer for whom a polygraph
examination is conducted may disclose in-
formation from the examination only to a
person described in subsection (b).
"WAIVER OF RIGHTS PROHIBITED
"SEC. 204. The rights and procedures pro-
vided pursuant to this title may not be
waived by contract or otherwise. No poly-
graph examiner may request an examinee
to waive any such right or procedure.
"ADMINISTRATION
"Sec. 205. The Secretary shall?
"(1) issue such rules and regulations as
may be necessary or appropriate for carry-
ing out this title; and
"(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 this title.
"RECORDKEEPING, INVESTIGATIONS, AND
ENFORCEMENT
"SEC. 206. (a) The Secretary shall have
the power to make investigations and re-
quire the keeping of records necessary or
appropriate for the administration of this
title in accordance with the powers and pro-
cedures provided in sections 9 and 11.
"(bX1) This Act shall be enforced in ac-
cordance with the powers, remedies, and
procedures provided in sections 11(b), 16
(except for subsection (a) thereof), and 17,
and subsection (c).
"(2) Any act prohibited under section 201
or 202 shall be deemed to be a prohibited
act under section 15.
"(3) Amounts owing to a person as a result
of a violation of this title shall be deemed to
be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid over-
time compensation for purposes of sections
16 and 17, except that liquidated damages
shall be payable only in cases of willful vio-
lations of this title.
"(4) In any action brought to enforce this
title, the court shall have jurisdiction to
grant such legal or equitable relief as may
be appropriate to carry out this title, includ-
ing judgments compelling employment, re-
instatement or promotion, or enforcement
of liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid
minimum wages or unpaid overtime com-
pensation under this section.
"(5) Before instituting any section under
this section, the Secretary shall attempt?
"(A) to eliminate the practice or practices
alleged; and
"(B) to effect voluntary compliance with
the requirements of this title through infor-
mal methods of conciliation, conference,
and persuasion.
"(c)(1) Subject to the limitations stated in
section 207, any person aggrieved may bring
a civil action in any court of competent ju-
risdiction for such legal or equitable relief
as will effectuate the purposes of this title,
except that the right of any person to bring
such action shall terminate on the com-
mencement of an action by the Secretary to
enforce the right of such person under this
title.
"(2) In an action brought under para-
graph (1), a person shall be entitled to a
trial by jury with respect to any issue of
fact in any such action for recovery of
amounts owing as a result of a violation of
this title, regardless of whether equitable
relief is sought by any party in such action.
"(d)(1) No civil action may be commenced
by an individual under this section until
sixty days after a charge alleging a violation
of this title has been filed with the Secre-
tary.
"(2) Such a charge shall be filed?
"(A) within one hundred and eighty days
after the alleged violation occurred; or
"(B) in a case to which section 207 ap-
plies?
"(i) within three hundred days after the
alleged violation occurred; or
"(ii) within thirty days after receipt by
the individual of notice of termination of
proceedings under State law, whichever is
earlier.
"(3) On receiving such a charge, the Sec-
retary shall promptly?
"(A) notify all persons named in such
charge as prospective defendants in the
action; and
"(B) seek to eliminate any alleged viola-
tion by informal methods of conciliation,
conference, and persuasion.
H 9587
"(e)(1) Sections 8 and 10 of the Portal-to-
Portal Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C. 255 and 259)
shall apply to actions under this title.
"(2) For the period during which the Sec-
retary is attempting to effect voluntary
compliance with requirements of this title
through informal methods of conciliation,
conference, and persuasion pursuant to sub-
section (b), the statute of limitations as pro-
vided in section 6 of such Act shall be tolled,
but in no event for a period in excess of one
year.
"EFFECT OF STATE LAW
"SEC. 207. (a) It is the express intent of
Congress that the States may regulate poly-
graph examinations in a manner that is con-
sistent with the standards set forth in this
title.
"(b)(1) Any State or political subdivision
thereof which desires to develop and en-
force standards for the use of polygraphs by
employers and polygraph examiners may
submit an administrative plan to the Secre-
tary at such time, in such manner, and con-
taining or accompanied by such information
as the Secretary may reasonably require.
Such plan shall?
"(A) identify the State agency designated
as responsible for administering the plan;
"(B) describe the standards in the admin-
istrative plan governing polygraph examin-
ers and the use of polygraph examinations
by employers;
"(C) provide assurances through a written
certification that such standards, and the
enforcement of such standards, will be at
least as effective as the standards set out in
this Act; and
"(D) explain the manner in which the
standards in such plan will be administered
and enforced by the State agency to assure
compliance with this Act.
"(2) An administrative plan meeting the
requirements of subsection (b)(1) shall be
deemed approved by the Secretary.
"(3) The Secretary shall make a continu-
ing 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 which submitted such plan
that approval of such plan is being with-
drawn and, upon receipt of such notice,
such plan shall cease to be in effect.
"(4) 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.
"(5) The prohibitions contained in sec-
tions 201 and 202 of this title shall not
apply to any polygraph examiner or any
employer engaged in any business in or af-
fecting interstate commerce, or any agent or
representative of such polygraph examiner
or employer, in any State or political subdi-
vision which has adopted an administrative
plan pursuant to subsection (b).
"(c) Nothing in this title shall be con-
strued to require regulation by a State or to
Prohibit a State from establishing a stand-
ard that prohibits an employer from?
"(1) taking any action against an employ-
ee or a prospective employee based on the
results of a polygraph examination; or
"(2) making an employee or prospective
employee submit to a polygraph examina-
tion against his or her will.
"(dX1) Subject to paragraph (2), in the
case of an alleged violation of this title oc-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
11 9588
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD IfOtISE
earring ht Steen Vat has an approved- ad-
minfotrathes plan isegegating --polygraph ex-
aminations 1.a. meamer that- teat least as
Avineri* ertine DRIPIIrsineras. at this titre,
or that has a standard refereed to in renb-
paragraph tear. _nee mit may be brought
under seethes 2011- aeoner them dray day*
after pmeeedings hem beer connneneed
under Um Seadolaw ear standard. urdesesocis
proceeding hwerbeeneariler-tenninallet. _
"(2) Minch sintpdely perked shag be ex-
tended to one hundred twenty days duping:
the first year after the effective date of
such State lower standard.
"(3) Poe' pOITIVOSO of this -subsection, a
Slate progeeding shad be deemed to how
mortaneneed
at Use-time it in deemed to have
commenced anderlitaterian.
"(e) Nothing in this title shall be con-
strue/lie/ weerthe groadonant this title to
the United Slates Government, to kW
agency
or aims of the- thated Stades Our-
enamel. to gay Sear IDOSISIDOSsitaLREIRIC7
ar agent of any Slots genernamted agency.
or to say deo eneemement money or agerit
of any law ealeseement agenee.
OMPIRICIORD
"Sec. 203. As used in this title?
"(I) the:erm konnneree has the mem*g
provided by asstd. 11(107(
"(2) the term employer' ft/diodes any
penamacting greens or helmety in the In-
terest at an onmleyer in relation- to an em-
ployee or prospective employee;
"01 tho Mint ilecireterr means the Secre-
tary ed Labor;
"(40 the tem 'State' mauls each of the
sermai Stated the Maid of Columbia, Use
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any po-
litica aniedivielon thereof;
"(Si the tens Veiggraph exarainatioe
means sag laterviocor examination of se.
employee or prospective employee of an em-
Noyes?
"(A) invoked. the me of any polygraph,
deceptograph, or any other similar device
not *thereto* peohibited by MS Act which
is used primarily for the purpose of detect-
ing deception. verifying the truth of state-
ments. essay singer purpose; or
"(S) which is subject to at any time to
analysis by ane polygraph. deceptogratei
(GBel). or any other Medlar device the re-
sults of which see ever reported to any em-
ployer, and
"(6) the term Volymaph essiminer* meam
any person who conducts a polygraph exam-
Mahn& as defined in paragraph (3) of this
secti.
irlderive PATE
Sec. 3. (a) libecept as provided in subsec-
tion (b), this Act and the amendments made
by this Act shall become effective six
months after tire termination of the first
legislative session of each State that occurs
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) The Secretary of Labor shall issue
such rules and regulations as may be neces-
sary or appropriate for carrying out title 11
of the Pair Leber Standards Act of 1933 (as
added by section 2 of this Act) not later
than one hundred and eighty days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the
reading). Mr. Chairman. I ask unani-
mous convent that the amaidment in
the nature of a substitute be consid-
ered as read and printed in the
RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Ch
man, this is a very serious substitute.
Last year it received a very large vote
fn this Hasse of Representahves. It IS
presented to our colleagues today ois
behalf of myself and the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. DaRDEN1.
In an effort to Save time, / asked
that we not read the full amendment
because ft to lengthy I might also tell
oto -colleagues. M. Chairman, that
the gentleman from Georgia Dlr.
mask and I had 11 other amend-
ments at the desk, but in an attempt
to aeconmesedate the Mesnbers and to
keep the proceedings from going on
too late this evening, we have agreed
not to offer those amendments'. But
we would like a serious distension Of
this very 'report/int substitute before
us today at this point
The bill before us now, Mr. Chair-
man. allows the use of polygraph by
the Federal Government, State gov-
ernments, load government, politica
subdivisions of those local govern-
ments, contractors to the FBI, those
who are involved in the security guard
business, those who are involved in the
drug business. It prohibits the use of
polygraph for those who work in nurs-
ing homes or finnne-ifil institutions or
those who are involved in a business
where some specific incident has taken
place, or in the delivery of home
health care or the delivery of other
home type services.
So on one hand this bill said it is OIC
to use the polygraph; on the other
hand it says no. you cannot use the
Polygraph-
0 2000
Now there is something just a little
inconsistent about that argument. But
during most et this debate today, Mr.
Chairman, it hat been suggested that
using the polygraph harassed people,
that it was used by quacks or that it
was a gadget that did not work and
the list of allegations and accusations
go on and on.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the substitute
that we present Isere this evening
solves every problem that was men-
tioned by every Member today in that
debate. Just for example, there is
nothing in the bill before us that pro-
tects the right of the employer or the
employee or the prospective employee
from being fired, dismissed or disci-
plined because he did not take a lie de-
tector test or a polygraph test if you
will.
Our substitute says that no employ-
er may discharge, dismiss, discipline or
deny employment or promotion to or
threaten to discharge, dismiss, disci-
pline or deny employment or promo-
tioa to any employee, agent, prospec-
tive employee or prospective agent
who refuses, declines, or fails to take
or submit to any polygraph examina-
tion.
Mr. Chairman, this protection is not
in the bill a. 1212. Further it says
no employer may discharge, discipline,
dimes. and so forth, or deny employ-
mast based solely on the opinions or
conclusions of a polygraph examiner.
Novembe 1187
Farther, Mr._ Chstinian.
DeaflanrYonnS substitute gays, no
em-
ployer may dismiss, discipline; and so
forth, any saplayee beaus* it the
ophdorsi or conelugleas Of k polygraph
examiner,
Mr. Chairman. thete Is no such Pro-
tection in /LW Mt,
Mr. Chairmen, this, substitute pro'
vides that an emplepse who feels that
he has been *bead by -the trelYlvallh
examination is given an orniortrusity to
rebut anyy, ceirciusion made by anyone
In conjunction. With that polygraph ex-
amination. nate is no sued protection
In the bill H.R., 1212. ?
Mr. Chairman, it has been said so
many thaeathat thistle a nueetrine, it is
a gadget. We concede that ft to m-
elt:wired. The polygraph exstrahmtion
Is only going to be as good as the ex-
aminer whoeives it. In our MS we pro-
vide that thesszaminer, amongst other
things, matt comply with all laws,
Federal, State or local; mast be le
censete must have completed a formal
training course regarding the use of
Polygraphs which has been approved
by the Secretary; must have complet-
e:I a polygraph esaminer internship
for at least 6 211012tha It goes on, list-
ing the qualifications of the examiner.
No such protection in the WMianas
bill, H.R. 1212.
Under that, bill all of these people
that I mention, these minions of
Americium Who mad be polygraphed
under H.R. 1212, could hare ft done to
them in a slipshod, or quickie fashion,
under their bin the polygraph exam
could be done without any kind of a
professional atmosphere and Without
any legal protection for the person
being examined.
The Darden-Young substitute pro-
vides those protections. Listen to this:
We include a bill of rights for the ex-
aminee and it includes such things as
the polygraph exarrdner may not in-
quire into religious beliefs or affili-
ations, racial beliefs, and so forth.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman front Florida (Mr. Youstal
has expired.
(By unanimous consent. Mr. YOMCG
of Florida was allowed to proceed for 3
additional rainutes.)
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Let me
repeat, a polygraph examiner may not
Inquire into racial beliefs or opinions,
political beliefs or affiliations, sexual
preferences or activities, beliefs, affili-
ations, or opinions regarding unions or
labor organizations. Each prospective
examinee shall be required to sign a
notice before the beginning of each
polygraph examination that he under-
stands the limitations imposed upon
the examiner; he understands his
rights as an examinee; he understands
that he may teratnate the polygraph
examination at any time and that he
has legal rights under this substitute,
if the polygraph examination to not
conducted in accordance with this
title.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1.987
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 9589
We provide that the polygraph ex-
aminer must schedule at least an hour
to conduct the examination. We pro-
vide that the questions to the examin-
ee must be in writing and must be dis-
cussed with the examinee prior to the
time that the polygraph actually takes
place.
We make every one of these protec-
tions and more, and none of these pro-
tections, not the first one of these pro-
tections that I think you would all
want in the case of any polygraph, not
one of them is included in the main
bill, H.R. 1212 as presented to this
House.
There will be many polygraph
exams under this bill because the ex-
emptions are there, and I listed the
many exemptions. It will apply to mil-
lions of Americans. The exemptions
are there.
There win be polygraph exams in
America whether this bill passes or
not or whether this bill is amended or
not.
So if you are going polygraph, why
not do it right; let us do it with exam-
iners who knew ? what they are doing,
who have been trained; who have been
educated and who meet certain crite-
ria under the law.
Second, Mr. Chairntan, and more im-
portantly let us write into the law pro-
tection for the examinee. He is going
to be examined under the Williams
bin. So why not make sure that he has
a bill of rights, the protection provided
by the Darden-Young substitute. That
is what we are asking. There is gang
to be polygraph examinations in
America, no matter what we do on this
bill; pass it or do not pass it, you are
going to PolYgraoh. Let 123 make sure
It is done right Let us protect the
People who are hiving the polygraph
done to them.
Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to
the gentleman from California Mfr.
LASOMARSIN01.
(Mr. LAGOMARSINO asked and
was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. LACH3MARSINO. I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gen-
tleman for his statement, I join in
strong support of the substitute. I
think it is a practical answer, a practi-
cal solution to this problem.
kir. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Young-Darden substitute amendment to H.R.
1212. This amendment is iderdical to legisla-
tion I have cosponsored. H.R. 1536, the Pon-
graph Reform Act.
Wale I recognize the potential for abuse
and actual abuse of the polygraph test and
the need to establish standards for its use,
do not believe that a total ban is the solution.
In fact, as we have seen from the language of
the bill and the sting of amendments attempt-
ing to exempt various industries, a total ban is
not even possible. We we inevitably *cod
with the question of where to draw the line.
Do we want to make use of the polygraph to
protect our money and not our Mitten? Or
allow its use by companies authorized to man-
tdactum and distibute controlled substanoes
while not permitting it to be utAzed in protect-
ing nursing home residents from abuse?
The substitute would allow business and in-
dustry to continue making use of the poly-
graph to protect their customers end assets,
while protecting those who are asked to take
polygraph exams to make sure that the tests
are administered fairly and accurately. I be-
Neve It is the proper approach and urge my
colleagues to support the stibstitute.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the
gentleman for his contribution and
support and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word and rise
In opposition to the amendment
Mr. Chairman, the hour is late, the
debate is becoming redundant. I would
simply like to say that it scares me
when the gentleman from Florida says
we are going to have polygraphing
whether we like it or not and we might
as well do it right. It has not been
proven yet that it can be done right.
I would simply say this is the substi-
tute, the same substitute pretty much
as offered in ledg. We voted it down
then, we should vote it down now sad
vote for the bill as presented with the
amendments; accepted by the commit-
tee.
Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues
to resist the substitute amendment
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I
more to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. DARDEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, first
of all I wont to thank you for the fair
manner in Which you have presided
over the Committee of the Whole
today and to my colleagues for the
kind attention and consideration that
they have given our substitute as well
as the entire debate that we have
heard.
What Mr. Young from Florida and I
have done, quite frankly, we have
taken a different approach than has
been taken by the committee. We
think that we have built a better
mousetrap. We think that we have a
solution here to the problem of poly-
graph abuse. We content, as well as
the committee, that there have been
abuses of the polygraph in the past.
Certainly there have. But you do not
correct the abuses or eliminate the
abuses by eliminating the system
Itself. So what we have done, Mr.
Chairman, is to provide and devise a
way to regulate the polygraph and to
eliminate the abuses of which the
committee complaints.
Mr. Chairman, what we have done is
we have provided regulations in two
particular areas: First of all we have
provided that the scope of the exami-
nation will be limited. It will be limited
solely to issues clearly relevant to the
employment that is sought or the inci-
dent that is being investigated.
Second, no person may be required
to take a polygraph examination. But if
that person does take a polygraph ex-
amination, that examination and its
contents will be explained to that
person before it is taken numerous
times so there is no possibility for
abuse or even mispronouncement of
where the person was born, as one of
our colleagues said, would cause the
machine to go bad.
Well, in addition to providing certain
Inherent rights to the person taking
the examination, Mr. Chairman, we
have also provided in our bill some
very strict requirements for the exam-
iner. The examiner must meet certain
unaiumna Federal requirements. But
in addition to that, Mr. Chairman, we
have not Preempted State law hi any
way. If your State doeS prohibit the
use of the polygraph in the private
seekr then your State will not be a-
cted because you have the right In
your State to go beyond the minimum
Federal standards that we set forth
here today.
Let me touch on several differences
between our approach and that of the
committee bill. Tina of all, the com-
mittee bill constitutes a total ban
While our substitute represents
thoughtful regulation. Our substitute
recognizes the problems of huge losses
suffered each year by merchants and
manufacturers and the need for them
to have tools for screening employees
In positions of trust.
Our substitute recognizes that the
polygraph can be used to vindicate the
innocent as well as to indicate the
guilty. I think perhaps this is some-
thing that has been overlooked and
needs to be emphasized over and over
again.
Mr. SWINDALL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DARDEN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Georgia OIL awransia..1
Mr. SWINDALL. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask
the gentleman about one of his com-
ments because it concerns me greatly.
Is the gentleman sayne that in the
event an employee, unless they fall
into one of the exempted areas under
the committee bill, if an employee de-
sires to have a lie detector test to vin-
dicate himself but under the commit-
tee's bill that type of activity would be
prohibited?
Mr. DARDEN. The gentleman is ab-
solutely oorrect. An innocent person
can be breaking the door down to take
a polygraph examination too, assert
his or her innocence and would be pro-
hibited under the committee bill from
proclaiming their innocence, shouting
from the rooftops.
Mr. SWINDALL. Mr. Chairman, as
the gentleman knows I used to be in
the furniture business back in Geor-
gia. On occasion I would hire convict-
ed felons because I for one think that
folks can make mistakes but they
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9590
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE November 4, 1987
ought not to be preempted from the
job market afterward.
This is a true story. One of the con-
victed felons whom I hired was work-
ing at our store at the time of the
theft loss that was obviously internal.
I came to that individual and said, "I
want you to know that a number of
your fellow employees are saying you
did it." And I said, I asked him if he
would mind submitting to a polygraph
test. And he said not only would he
not mind, he wanted to because he felt
very strongly about his character and
he also knew that if he lost that job
he would go back into the slammer be-
cause it was absolutely a condition to
his parole that he have a job.
So he went and he took the poly-
graph and it did vindicate him.
My point is that without the gentle-
man's substitute that type of opportu-
nity for individuals that would other-
wise be preempted most likely from
finding a job and having a second
chance, would really be hurt very
badly.
So I want to first of all commend the
gentleman on the substitute because I
think it does strike a balance between
some of the concerns that individuals
have with respect to rights of privacy
and the professional quality of these
examinations.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. DARDZN]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. DARDEN
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. DARDEN. I yield further to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. SI.vin-
DALL1.
Mr. SWINDALL. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding further.
Moreover, it recognizes the very im-
portant need in the marketplace to
protect workers who would desire to
vindicate their good name because of
their past circumstances in the sense
that they would be the first suspected
and they will be basically stripped of
the opportunity to show that they
were not the person that was guilty
and unquestionably suspicion would be
theirs.
Mr. DARDEN. I thank the gentle-
man for dramatizing the point for me
and demonstrating it so well.
I will say in conclusion, my col-
leagues, everywhere I go throughout
this district, I ask people what they
want me to be concerned about and
how they want to be represented.
They say "do one thing for us: Leave
us alone, get the Government off our
backs."
0 2015
Mr. Chairman, this is one more ex-
ample of this Congress and this House,
I truly believe, getting on the backs of
our constituents and private business
in general. As far as I am concerned, if
the polygraph is good enough for the
U.S. Government, for the State Of
Georgia and local governments, it is
good enough for the private sector.
Mr. THOMAS of Georgia. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike the requi-
site number of words.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1212 would es-
sentially outlaw the use of the poly-
graph in most American businesses?
except those few that might gain an
exemption from the ban. During the
debate on this issue, others have
talked about how the ban would hurt
businesses and consumers and about
the unfortunate double standard that
the Williams bill would create. I would
like to talk briefly about how it could
hurt American workers.
If we were to ban the polygraph,
companies would change their policies
to adapt to the ban. Instead of using
the polygraph as a screening device,
they would most likely rely more ex-
tensively on background checks, em-
ployment histories, and so forth.
Those who oppose the use of the poly-
graph, in fact, advocate these alterna-
tive methods of personnel screening.
But let's think for a moment about
the long-term consequences of this
change. Employers who could not use
the polygraph would hire workers
with long and verifiable work histo-
ries. They would increasingly look for
people with strong family ties, with
ties to their community, and give even
greater preference to those with a
proven track record.
This policy would enable most com-
panies to continue to hire competent,
reliable workers, although the screen-
ing process may be more expensive.
For many companies, a polygraph ban
would not erode their workforce. It
would be business as usual for most
firms.
But this change in hiring policies
could have serious consequences for a
major and especially vulnerable seg-
ment of the work force?those who are
trying to work themselves out of pov-
erty, and those just enterning the job
market. These are the very people
who can least tolerate another barrier
to employment.
Those who would suffer the most
from a polygraph ban would be those
who have just moved to another city
to search for opportunity, those who
have had a rocky employment histo-
ry?perhaps through no fault of their
own?and those who are having a
tough time breaking into the job
market. It seems to me that it would
be a terrible mistake for us to pass a
bill that would make it even harder
for them to get jobs.
We have a responsibility to look
down the road at the consequences of
a total ban on the polygraph. I believe
that if we pass the Williams bill, we
may be kicking many of our citizens
off the employment ladder, just as
they are trying to work their own way
up.
For these reasons, I cannot support
H.R. 1212, and urge consideration of
the Darden-Young substitute.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to H.R.
1212 and in support of the Young-
Darden substitute. '
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman,
In the interest of expediency, since
time is very valuable to the Members,
I will not use all of my time. I would
simply say that I believe the Young-
Darden substitute is a very reasonable
compromise to the approach that has
been taken here today. H.R. 1213 is a
bill whose time has not come.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R.
1212 and in support of the Young-Darden
substitute.
I oppose and testified against legislation to
ban the polygraph last year, and I continue to
oppose it, because I believe that such legisla-
tion would deprive private employers of a very
important tool in screening out thieves and
criminals from various specialized places of
employment Polygraph tests are needed.
They are effective, and they protect banks,
child-care centers, and nuclear powerplants.
Businesses of all kinds need the polygraph to
help them hire trustworthy people and combat
an estimated annual loss of 840 billion from
theft.
Obviously polygraphs work and clearly Con-
gress knows they work. Time after time the
House has voted to allow Government agen-
cies to use the polygraph. Just this year we in-
cluded by a vote of 345-44 a provision in the
1987 defense authorization bill which permits
random polygraph tests of DOD employees
and contractors with access to sensitive infor-
mation. We also passed the State Department
authorization Mil 414-0 in June which allows
polygraph testing of Embassy security person-
nel.
Department of Defense counterintelligence
personnel have identified seven cases in the
past 2 years in which polygraph examinations
uncovered information about potentially seri-
ous national security breaches that would
have never come to light without such a pro-
gram. For instance, &polygraph exam of a de-
fense contractor employee applying for spe-
cial access clearance revealed that he has
previously been involved In a scheme to
smuggle U.S. high technology equipment to
the Eastern bloc.
In case after case there is evidence to
show that the polygraph is critical to efforts to
protect our Nation's security interests from es-
pionage. During the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee's investigation into the Walker
spy ring Members asked witnesses what could
be done to prevent such activities in the
future. Admiral Butts, who was the Chief of
Naval Intelligence at the time, told us that
random polygraph testing would be the most
effective deterrent That is why Representa-
tive BILL YOUNG of Florida added a provision to
the defense authorization bill that would allow
random testing. If the possibility of polygraph
testing is such an important deterrent factor to
the Department of Defense, how can we then
disallow its use?and thus its deterrent effect
on thefts and dishonesty in the private sector.
So we've acknowledged that our national
security needs requint the protection provided
by polygraph exams, yet why are we now
saying that our private citizens are not entitled
to the same protection? That's foolish. It
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
would be horribly inconsistent to approve the
use of the polygraph for the Government, and
then prohibit it for the private sector. Yet
that's what we're about today.
Opponents of the polygraph argue that poly-
graph examinees are poorly trained and that
the results are inaccurate. However, the poly-
graph has consistently proven accurate 85 to
95 percent of the time, and that's why we
want our intelligence gathering agencies to
use it.
In my 8 years as a criminal prosecutor in
Louisiana, the polygraph proved to be a valua-
ble investigative tool upon which we relied.
There were times when charges were actually
dropped because of a defendant's perform-
ance on a polygraph. The exam is value, it
not only helps in catching crooks, but in clear-
ing innocent people as well.
It is in everyone's interest that polygraph re-
sults be as accurate as possible. In Louisiana,
laws have been passed which establish guide-
lines for the training and licensing of poly-
graph examiners, set requirements for the
equipment used in the test, and institute pro-
tections for the rights of those taking the
exam. In fact, according to the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, 34 States and the District of
Columbia now regulate the practices of poly-
graph examiners. Although I do not see any
purpose in involving the Federal Government
in this area at all, it would be better to pass
legislation modeled on current State law than
to simply outlaw the use of the polygraph in
the private sector. That is why I support the
Young-Darden substitute amendment.
The substitute allows private-sector employ-
ers to use polygraphs provided they follow
certain guidelines. It protects examiners by
making it illegal for examinees to ask ques-
tions concerning religious, racial, political or
social beliefs. Further, It specifies that poly-
graph results may not be used as the sole
basis for an employment decision. There are
also provisions allowing relief in Federal court
for any improper use of the polygraph. This
substitute allows the private sector to protect
Itself, and us, from dishonest employees, but
at the same lime it preserves the rights of all
employees from possible polygraph abuses. It
Is a fair and reasonable ekternatWe to H.R.
1212.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to sup-
port the Young-Darden substitute and oppose
H.R. 1212.
Mr. ROWLAND of Georgia. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike the requi-
site number of words.
(Mr. ROWLAND of Georgia asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. ROWLAND of Georgia. Mr.
Chairman, there has been consider-
able discussion about the degree of ac-
curancy of polygraph examinations.
Even the most ardent believer in
polygraphs will concede that they are
not infallible. Unfortunately, the re-
sults of polygraph tests have some-
times been treated as absolute fact. It
is this kind of abuse that the Young-
Darden substitute seeks to eliminate.
At the same time, it is my under-
standing that over the past 10 to 15
years important strides have been
made in the training of examiners, in
the sophistication of the testing, and
In the quality of the equipment. Poly-
graph testing is more reliable as an in-
vestigative tool today than it has been
in the past.
As a physician. I am very aware of
the usefulness of electrocardiograms
In the diagnosis of a heart condition.
But as every physician knows, an elec-
trocardiogram does not tell every-
thing. While it is an important tool, it
Is not the only one which is used to de-
termine the cardiac status of a patient.
Many other tests are also used.
The same is true of a polygraph test.
It can be helpful if properly used in
conjunction with other investigative
procedures.
However, given the fact that poly-
graph testing is not totally accurate, it
Is important that something be done
to prevent the abuses. Among other
things, the Young-Darden substitute
would prohibit any employer from
making a decision about an employee
based solely on the results of a poly-
graph test. Other investigative tech-
niques would need to be used to deter-
mine whether any action should be
taken.
I believe that employees deserve pro-
tection against the improper use of
polygraph examinations. I do not be-
lieve that an absolute ban on poly-
graphs is the way to provide that pro-
tection. In my view, Mr. Chairman,
the Young-Darden substitute is an ap-
proach that all sides on this issue
should be able to support.
Mr. HUTTO. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. HUTTO asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HUTTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the Darden-Young substi-
tute to the Employee Polygraph Pro-
tection Act. My State of Florida first
Passed laws regulating the polygraph
Industry in 1967. Over that time, the
State has developed a system of strin-
gent regulations that allow both busi-
ness and labor access to the polygraph
while minimizing instances of abuse.
Florida's former secretary of state,
George Firestone, presented testimony
to the last Congress detailing our
State's experience with the polygraph.
I would like to share some of his ob-
servations with you.
Last year, there were 519 fully li-
censed polygraph examiners in Flori-
da, conducting an estimated 300,000
tests a year. State law requires that
each of those 300.000 individuals he
told that they have a right to file a
complaint with the secretary of state,
yet only one validated complaint
aginst an examiner was filed all year.
This evidence would lead me to con-
clude that polygraph abuse is neither
widespread nor prevalent in our State.
Furthermore, there is evidence to
show that the polygraph can benefit
both employers and employees.
It benefits our State in that those
who are qualified to work can find
Jen& And It certainly benefits our citi-
zens when they are protected by the
H9591
Information from polygraph tests
from persons who would use their jobs
to commit crimes.
In Florida, the polygraph fulfills
demonstrated public need to employ-
ers, employees, and customers. One of
the reasons it serves us so well is be-
cause we enforce a strict set of stand-
ards, restrictions, and practices regard-
ing the polygraph.
I support the Young-Darden substi-
tute because it respects my States's
right to use the polygraph under the
regulations that it determines to be
appropriate. If Congress were to
outlaw polygraph testing in the pri-
vate sector, the Federal Government
would be denying our citizens jobs,
stripping our businesses of an impor-
tant tool they need to operate, and in-
truding in our legitimate right to
manage our own affiars.
I urge my colleagues to join with me
In supporting the Young-Darden
amendment.
Mr. RAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words,
and I rise in support of the Darden-
Young substitute.
(Mr. RAY asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. RAY. Mr. Chairman. I wish to
compliment the gentleman from Geor-
gia IMr. DARDEN] and the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Yourrol for their in-
terest in business. These gentlemen
are probusineas. They have dug into
the situation that is affecting busi-
ness. They have come down on the
side of being probusiness, and I think
they have done a very good job in
crafting and bringing together this
substitute.
Mr. Chairman, today we are consid-
ering legislation that those on both
skies of the Issue agree would make
sweeping changes in the polygraph in-
dustry and dramatically affect dozens
of other industries that rely on the
Polygraph.
While all of us would agree that
polygraph abuse should be stopped,
many of us nonetheless believe that
H.R. 1212, which outlaws the poly-
graph in many private sector indus-
tries, has serious flaws. It sets up a
double standard between the Govern-
ment and private industry. We should
pass legislation that taket a consistent
approach to polygraph regulation.
Banning the polygraph in many pri-
vate sector industries while allowing
Its use by Government agencies is in-
consistent with Democratic principles.
Government officials at all levels?
from the CIA to local police forces?
have said that the polygraph can be
an essential tool in investigations,
often providing the key to solving a
case. The Congress has passed legisla-
tion to require expanded use of the
polygraph by the Defense Department
to protect our national security. If the
polygraph is useful to them, it must be
useful for private employers as well.
neclassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9592 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. RAY. I yield to the gentleman
from Georgia.
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, does
the gentleman realize that if this com-
mittee bill is adopted, we would not
even be able to administer a polygraph
test to people who go to work in day
care centers before they go to work
there?
We are told that 52 percent of Amer-
ica's mothers with children of the age
of 6 are in the work force, and many
of these children are taken to day care
centers and nursery schools every day
while their mothers work. Does the
gentleman agree that we have a re-
sponsibility to protect these children
from the possibility of abuse by unfit
employees in these child day care cen-
ters?
Mr. RAY. Mr. Chairman, I do agree
with the gentleman from Georgia. I
also would make an inquiry of the gen-
tleman, who is, I believe, a former dis-
trict attorney in Cobb County, GA.
Mr. DARDEN. That is correct.
Mr. RAY. I understand the gentle-
man had many cases dealing with
child abuse in day care centers, or at
least the gentleman knew of many
cases?
Mr. DARDEN. Yes. And in addition
to that, if you look at the newspapers
over the last several years, there have
been rampant examples of abuse by
employees of day care centers. All we
need to do is call the Congressional
Research Service. We found about 40
or 50 such examples just in the past
year.
We believe this is one more reason
why we must have the use of the poly-
graph to prohibit people such as this
from looking after our children under
the guise of caring for them.
Mr. RAY. I know the gentleman is
aware of this problem, and so am I.
The most precious commodity we have
Is our children. Certainly we need to
do everything we can to protect these
children in day care centers.
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman.
Mr. RAY. Mr. Chairman, in an arti-
cle in the Labor Law Journal, a noted
polygraph authority said "If ? ? ? the
test is reliable enough to aid in pro-
moting public safety by keeping dis-
honesty among public employees in
check, it must logically follow that pri-
vate employers be allowed to impose
its use as well."
Over the past several decades, we
have passed hundreds of bills requir-
ing business and industry to protect
the health and welfare of their cus-
tomers. We require them to accept
this responsibility, and we give citizens
the right to take them to court if they
violate it.
The business and industrial manager
serves at the first line of defense in
protecting the public froin abuses of
products, services, and employees. It is
in the employer's and the public's in-
terest for businesses to monitor their
inventories and to screen personnel so
that they can detect, correct, and
avoid problems before they cause
damage or injury. A company's inter-
nal controls provide the quickest, the
most economical, and the safest solu-
tion to many of these problems.
This brings me to my second point:
not only is the double standard wrong,
but so is the triple or quadruple stand-
ard that would be created if some busi-
nesses were allowed to use polygraph
testing and not others.
I believe it is essential that we con-
sider the needs of industries which use
the polygraph to protect the health,
safety, and resources of millions of
Americans. It is essential that we
make sure that the legislation we de-
velop addresses their concerns in an
appropriate manner. While we have a
responsibility to our constitutents to
protect them from abusive polygraph
exams, we also must make sure that
we don't pass a bill that disregards the
legitimate needs and concerns of em-
ployers. I believe it is possible to strike
a balance between the two.
The Young-Darden substitute sets
up guidelines for those States that
have either weak or no polygraph leg-
islation. It sets standards which ensure
not only that examinees are protected
but which require tests to be thorough
and given by competent examiners.
This legislation recognizes the prac-
tical needs of American business and is
responsive to the potential harm that
can be done to examinees by improp-
erly trained testers or others who
abuse test results. It recognizes that
the States are best able to consider all
of these needs and to find the balance
that works best for their citizens,
using guidelines that we establish at
the Federal level.
The polygraph has a role to play as
one of the tools used by companies in
internal investigations, but the poly-
graph must be administered fairly and
accurately if it is to be effective. The
Young-Darden substitute would reg-
ulate the polygraph industry to pro-
tect employees while serving American
business by improving the reliability
of polygraph exams:
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. JEFFORDS asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I am happy to yield
to the gentlewoman from Nevada.
(Mrs. VUCANOVICH asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of the Young-Darden
substitute and urge its adoption. This
is a good substitute. It is a good bal-
anced bill.
Mr. Chairman, proponents of H.R. 1212 say
that polygraphs don't work; that they aren't re-
liable. Well, Mr. Chairman, these same propo-
nents of H.R. 1212 have already acknowi-
November 4, 1987
edged the legitimacy and efficacy of polygraph
testing in some stituations because of the ex-
emptions written into this bill As we know,
H.R. 1212 proposes to ban polygraph testing
by all private employers, except for: First, all
Federal, State and local government employ-
ers; and second, private employers engaged
in governmental intelligence or counterintelli-
gence work. The bill specifically exempts em-
ployees of the CIA, the National Security
Agency, the FBI, and DOD from the ban.
In addition, this body has already officially
acknowledged how essential polygraph testing
is for national security purposes. In the last
Congress, and again more recently, during
consideration of the Defense Authorization
bill, we overwhelmingly endorsed the use of
polygraph testing. Unquestionably, there are
places and occasions where polygraph testing
is vital.
So, are we to say that polygraph tests are
good and essential; and that a polygraph test
is a legitimate tool for use in the public sector,
but it is not reliable for the private sector? Is
this another double standard Congress pre-
sumes to impose? We cannot acknowledge
the usefulness?the essential role of poly-
graph testing as a legitimate and effective tool
for the Government to use, and yet deny its
credibility and efficacy for the private sector.
Obviously, the polygraph test has a proper
place in both Government and private busi-
ness.
Yes, abuses can and do occur; however,
the abuses occur when there are no regula-
tions?when there are no standards for train-
ing, and when there are no guidelines for con-
ducting the tests. The answer is to eliminate
the abuses of polygraph testing, not the uses
of polygraph testing. Banning the use of the
polygraph is throwing the baby out with the
bath water.
The Young-Darden substitute properly ad-
dresses the need for regulating the use of
polygraph testing and ensuring that examiners
meet certain standards, while at the same
time guaranteeing the rights of individuals
being examined. This is where our focus
should be?recognizing the essential role of
polygraph tests, while at the same time recog-
nizing the need to provide uniform, strict
standards.
The Young-Darden substitute is a balanced
bill?a reasonable measure that protects both
the employee/prospective employee, and the
employer. It is a moderate alternative which
would allow the private sector the same pro-
tections afforded the Government. I urge my
colleagues to vote for the Young-Darden sub-
stitute.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I do
not intend to take much time, but I do
want to clarify a couple of things.
Earlier I spoke and took a position in
strong opposition to amendments to
this bill, and I am most strongly in op-
position to this particular amendment.
Something is wrong if the system
does not work, and nothing we can do
to regulations is going to fix it. My po-
sition is that any validity there may be
In this is far outweighed by the darn-
ages created to the individuals who are
forced to go through the polygraph
examinatfons, and the general feeling
among those who have studied this
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05 CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
issue is that it is no better than a flip
of a coin.
I did vote for the Gunderson substi-
tute because I believe that the intimi-
dation factor, which I believe is a pri-
mary consideration, can sometimes be
successful. In fact, I would point out
one incident to the Members where
the police, who were very imaginative
and did not have a polygraph handy,
wired a fellow up to a Xerox machine
and started questioning him, and at an
appropriate time they pushed a button
on the machine where they had previ-
ously put in a piece of paper that said,
"It's a lie." So when they asked the
gentleman as to whether or not he
had committed the crime, they pushed
the button, and out popped the paper,
It said, "It's a lie," and he confessed.
I can see that this machine or these
kinds of tactics of intimidation can led
to some utility, but the question is
whether it is utility with respect to
preemployment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank the gentleman for yield-
ing.
I agree with the gentleman and the
problem that the gentleman expresses
about the Xerox machine.
Under H.R. 1212 that could still
happen. Under the Darden-Young sub-
stitute, because we put in place certain
safeguards, that could not happen; but
under H.R. 1212, the situation that
the gentleman is really worried about
can still happen.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I do not want to
stop police officers from being able to
do their duty in that kind of fashion.
I would say that I think that the bill
or the amendment that we have here
Is going to create more problems than
it solves, and I would like to refer to a
colloquy that I had earlier with the
gentleman from Texas, because I do
not want to leave any impression upon
the Members that I made a misstate-
ment.
I indicated that the DOD study did
not show any studies which indicated
there was a validity with respect to
preemployment screening, or if there
was, it was done by a polygraph exam-
iner.
The gentleman from Texas [Mr.
DELAY] took serious exception to that,
but the gentleman gave me a list of
the studies to which the gentleman
relied upon.
There was one study that was re-
ferred to in the DOD study which in-
dicated that there was validity to pre-
screening for employment. However, it
was by a polygraph screening director
of the Polygraph Screening Service in
Salt Lake City, UT, Dr. Berland, who
Is not referred to as being a polygraph
expert on the gentleman's list.
There are other studies, the Bursch,
Bloom and Edie study, and one was a
study by Mr. Horvath, former chief
examiner for the largest polygraph in-
stitution in the United States, and the
others he referred to were studies by a
Dr. Raskin.
Let me read what he said in testimo-
ny before the Senate committee.
There is no scientific evidence that poly-
graph testing, when used in the conunercial
sector for screening, has any scientific valid-
ity ? ? ? One thing I would like to point out
very clearly is that there is a substantial dif-
ference between its use in criminal investi-
gation and in national security applications
as compared to commercial screening appli-
cations.
Except that one study done by a
polygraph operator, that has shown
any validity to preemployment screen-
ing, and we are dealing with that here.
I could take a little issue with the
gentleman from Florida that we
cannot still have quickies on this, be-
cause the amendment only says that
they must set aside 1 hour.
It does not say that they have to
have an exam that lasts at least an
hour, so I do not think it does all the
gentleman hopes it will do.
We should not be validating some-
thing which has never been proven to
be validated, except in one city by a
polygraph operator.
Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. DELAY asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to
answer the gentleman from' Vermont,
the gentleman's statement that there
Is only one study on preemployment
polygraph examination.
I would like to clear it up. There is
one study in the Department of De-
fense survey of 42 studies. There are
42 studies in 1 survey.
I would also like to point out that
they are not the only studies that
have been done on preemployment
polygraph examination, the effects of
motivation.
There is another survey, a review of
the scientific literature of the validity,
reliability and utility of polygraph
techniques and many others that I
could refer to.
There are more studies than have
been quoted by the proponents of this
bill.
They say the AMA and the ()TA
have done studies. I can show you 42
in 1 survey and hundreds from all over
the world, Canada, Israel, and other
countries in this world in this particu-
lar review.
Every one of them says that there is
some validity in some way, or I should
not say every one of them, but the
vast majority of them say that there is
validity in the polygraph system, and
most of them say that there is at least
validity in at least 80, if not 95, per-
cent of the examinations taken.
That is not the point. They have
brought up a few studies. We have
brought up many, many studies that
are done to attest to the validity.
H 9593
I think the real validity is if the
polygraph is not WV good, then why
are so many people using it? Why has
this House recognised that it would be
valid in the case of drugs and financial
Institutions and in the Government? It
is valid. There is no argument.
There is one opinion by this side,
and our opinion is that it is valid.
The point is that it is valid, and this
substitute restricts and gives you crite-
ria by which it is not abused and gives
certain minimums by which you can
hold the examiner's feet to the fire.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAY. I yield to the gentleman
from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank the gentleman for yield-
ing.
On the subject of accuracy and ef-
fectiveness of the polygraph, 2 years
ago this House and the Congress cre-
ated a temporary test program in the
Department of Defense for polygraph,
and a school for polygraph examiners
was established at Fort McClellan, AL.
Under this test program, poly-
graphers for the Department of De-
fense conducted 9,500 exams The De-
partment of Defense did a random
survey of those people who took those
polygraph tests, and found that 99
percent did not think that the poly-
graph was unfair in any Way, or that it
was objectionable or an unwarranted
invasion of privacy.
Based on this study, this House and
the conferees committee on the au-
thorization bill now have agreed, to
make the test program a permanent
program because they are satisfied it
works when you do it right.
We are trying to put in place the
same professional requirements that
the Department of Defense is using at
their school at Fort McClellan, AL
Mr. DELAY. The gentleman from
Vermont did not refer to the other
studies done on postincidents, crime
detection, and others that were done
that were highly effective, so what the
gentleman is saying, and what most of
them are basing the invalidity of a
polygraph on is saying that there are
no major studies done on prescreen-
ing, but there have been many studies
done on criminal investigations, post-
incident investigations that show
time and time again that it is a valid
process.
You cannot have it both ways, where
It is not valid for prescreening, so it is
not valid for anything.
It is valid, and we all know it is valid,
and it ought to be used to protect the
citizens of America.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
I would like to share with the Mem-
bers an article that I found in my desk
today. It is interesting, and I had not
seen this when I came over earlier in
the day and got involved in the debate.
Let me quote a few relevant passag-
es.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9694 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Donald Davis is al2-year-old worker,
and so on, and was grilled extensively
by pollee arterreporting his vrifei dis-
appearenee =January 12.
He fluitrodisovery time he was asked
if he had killer her. I will skip down in
the article.
"They asked me If I killed my wife
with a gun era knife or my hands, and
they asked me if I threw her off a
mountain er in a lake or a river or a
reek quarry," he
The polygraph repcut.showed a long
list of questions, each asking if he
killed the woman or knew where she
was, or if she was alive. ?
Beside each question was Davis* re-
sponse of no, along with the word "de-
ception."'
The story goes on to point out that
his wife returned. She left town, had
gone to somewhere in Florida. She
said she wanted to find out if she
could make it on her own. She was
gene 6 Weeks, and somehow called
home and talked to a girlfriend;? ,and
the girlfriendtold her about the prob-
lems her Ameba= was lasing and be-
cause she returned, he was not con-
victed of iiiiirder.
The .artlele ends with it quote from
Mr. Davis *ben be sans. Wasn't
lying. It Was that-lie detector that was
hang." . _ _
There are neventl major problems
with this ProPeerd to WM Widespread
he-det etm'teeta. and the first elle is it
very biadeetmantutkatat nuestlen: The
question of our system of notice. -
- Under- ettel tgallern we luistime that
our MINK tiM Peogfe Of thninetintrY.
see bitteeent ant& proven guilty. The
wigeepnimi of lie-detoctot tests
San Weft "Odle that you are guiltY,
and you malt Wove -rem innocence,
and heworeVetillotortO de it
You are Molter ft/ dolt with a gadget
that our note distingulehed Senator
from North- COOS= called 20th-ten-
Vey ?-witeltersift. These gadgets do not
nark
I Rooked-at some of the stud** the
dbilingukilled gentleman 'front Tema
was emoting Weer one of those stud:
les I meld *ad same Weasel word,
seine waysof quanfying that study to
make It dear ?that these lie detectors
steak:WY net Tellable.
I have net seen these comments, but
it has been said over and over again
today that the American Medical As-
sociation Is against the use of these
gadgets, that the American Psycholog-
ical Association, the experts on test-
ing, are against using these gadgets.
Let us pay some attention to them
experts in the field. We are running
the grave risk, of putting American
people at great risk in an attempt to
find some quick fix for a very serious
problem
Let me tame by making the Members
to ask remedies this question: Would
you like to anbieet your future, your
future.thkoPtsettrte to work and In
setae indatices het; to this little
blaerbele; Igen Wale Sedge, plot ?sente
person, usually a person that is net
highly trained or qualified, would you
want to subject your life, your future
to this kind of gadget?
If you answer yes, I guess you can
say yes, this is just nenderful.
Let us run ahead with these kinds of
tests, but this is a very dangerous
precedent.
It has been said over and over again
today that we are being hypocritical
when we say we ought to let the Fed-
eral Government. the Intelligence
agencies of our country use these
gadgets but not let private business,
and that Is absolutely correct. -
If we let our intelligence agencies
use these gadgets and rely upon them
for important national security ques-
tions, we subject our country to great
danger.
I would urge the Members net to
continue to' let the intelligence agen-
cies of this country use these gadgets
In away that might put our country in
great jeopardy.
There are mental techniques that
can be used, drugs that can be taken
se people can defeat these tests, and
we roma grwre risk-
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman frora Noe*. Carolina Dar.
Naar.) has expired. -
(On request of hit. Swrantu., and by
unanimous consent, Mr. Nem. mg al-
lowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. SWINDALL. Mr. Chairman, will
*engagers= yietd?
Mr. NEAL. I yield to the gentleman
fie* Otieratlit
/0. SWIND4.L4. Mr. Chain,
thank the gentiegaan for yielding to
me-
First of all, what would the gentle-
man 40 about- the eituation which I
addressed earlier where there is a con-
victed ex-eon who desires to have a
polygraph to clear his or her good
name?
What would the gentleman do for
that person?
Mr. NEAL, I would have to say to
that person, you cannot de it with
these gadgets, because they are Inher-
ently unreliable.
I have a hearing record of hearings
held before the Committee on Govern-
ment Operations when we heard wit-
ness after witness testify to the point,
to the fact that these gadgets are not
reliable; and for that reason. I would
have to say to the gentleman, you
cannot depend on tb.ese gadgets to
nally determine kuunience or guilt.
Mr. SWINDALL. Under that scenar-
io, the person lopes his Job, so what
couldbe worse?
2045
Mr. NEAL. Many people are going to
lose their jobs, just like this poor
fellow here. This fellow could have
ended up, **Lie Detector Tells Fin" the
headline stda., ,Trite tenon could hese
ended up dead because of it fanny Ile
detector,
/dr. sAverizrr. Mr. elitirrosn,
move to strike the reqtdene number of
November 4, 1987
words. I rise to speak in favor 'of the
substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take the
entire S Minntes, but. I must my in re-
sponse to My *pod Mend, the gentle-
man from North Carolina. who is very
eloquent, that ?I want to call to the at-
tention of the gentleman and the at-
tention of the House In the example
that the gentionan used of a law en-
forcement .1Ie detector or, polygraph
which later, proved: to be false- is ex-
foliate Penaitted and ? authorized
under the bill that is before us; so if
you want to eliminate or to restrict
any ,abuses that you may see happen-
ing in law enforcement, then You
should mote against the bill. ?
On the other . hand.. ?the Darden-
Young substitute ?that is before us
would eatablisk :minimum atandards
for polygraph examiners; require-
ments that the naintiene be in writing
and a whole host of other standards;
so if the gentleman is irderested, as I
know he Is, in curing the problem that
he specifically ? eited,?-thet Is, a Poly-
graph that was used in a law. enforce-
resat met and it Stirried? out to be in-
correct,- that he dieted , vote for the
substitute . which, will establiah
nuani stands/di; naprove these stand-
ards; mini-
mid ortabliithatteldinde for P017'
grant' examiners and esimeinationa
The Pluuse needs: to understand
there-are two WitIoettire: to, Thema*
bet nountsornhildt:inattagen the nee
of a tooligraPh iiti Whjund
regard to, Whether It smote 'standards
or net, orcept fbr-00,?.0.t work.
For Government ,werk.:- cj*-Standerds
are given hi thelnli at all.,pt ORO.
On the Clner Itialtt; there is the
Paden-7'0u* ,ienxitintte-, that.. Would
say thatif theie had tannidniseti In
coll'itragol, if there arelitandattle?that
ought to be odepted?, we *fit adapt
those standard*" for allOaMW
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Cb? WM the
gentleman,yleldf ? ?
Mr. HARTLETT;Yee. t.gield to the
gentler frtorri North 'Carolina.
Mr. NEAL. Well, Mr. Chairman. I
would Just like to make one point. I do
not mean to be ton facetious. I am
quoting *Om a statatient b & *gin-
guished Member of this
I would say I would considet estab-
lishing standards, for these ao-called lie
detector tests about like establishing
standards for the diudting stool, the
rack, and the tiring squid. These are
all techniques for eliciting a.Partioular
response, but, submit to my. good
friend and my distingulshed.colleogue
that these. lie-detector tests ,are no
more accurate , than the gadget. that
they used to dunk people to determine
If they were liars. ?
Mr. sairrEarr. I understand.
Mr. =AL. would be we would
not proceed. With 'thoae things in this
modern-day
Mr. ,m 1 underetand the
gentifirerno "Medartnindon. 1' did not
make that idatniatatt end the Patie-
nt= did netbut the-bill that the gen-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November 4, 1987
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE H 9595
tleman from North Carolina plans to
vote for and is speaking for establishes
no standards whatsoever for Govern-
ment uses, none, not one. If it is a gov-
ernment use, if it is a law enforcement
agency, if it is the Congress of the
United States, we will have no stand-
ards, not one; but under the Darden-
Young bill we would establish at least
some standards for all uses of the
polygraph.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield one more time?
Mr. BARTLETT. I yield to the gen-
tleman from North Carolina.
Mr. NEAL. Let me say, Mr. Chair-
man, I share that concern and I would
hope that we would understand that
these gadgets are inherently unreli-
able and not depend on them for the
Government use. If we can stop their
widespread use, which I believe to be
unconstitutional and unreliable with
the American public, maybe we can
move to stop their use in the Govern-
ment also.
Mr. BARTLETT. I understand what
the gentleman is saying. That is not
the subject that is before the House.
We have two bills before the House.
We can choose one to prohibit all uses
in private industry and no standards
at all in the public sector, or two, we
can acknowledge that we should estab-
lish some standards, minimum stand-
ards, and some licensing requirements
for the use of the polygraph.
I urge the House to take the other
course, the Darden-Young course, for
the minimum standards.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, if
the claims of its supporters can be be-
lieved, the polygraph is truly an amaz-
ing device. It is supposed to measure
our intangible thoughts; determine if
we are telling the truth or telling a lie;
it is supposed to help police and pros-
ecutors determine the truth of a sus-
pect's statements, and thereby deter-
mine probable guilt or innocence. It is
supposed to aid employers to weed out
those prospective employees who
would be prone to lie, to cheat, and to
steal. If all those claims are believed,
the polygraph is truly an amazing
device. It can find that most elusive of
all human qualities: truth.
Unfortunately, the fact is that the
polygraph does not measure truth and
it does not measure falsehood. It can
only measure physical reactions such
as blood pressure, heart beat, perspira-
tion, and then technicians take those
reactions and measure them against
research figures to determine if the
subject is uncomfortable enough to be
suspected of telling a lie.
What type of device is this to inflict
upon human beings, who as the gen-
tleman from North Carolina so elo-
quently said, under our Constitution
and under our system or jurisprudence
are presumed to be innocent until
proven guilty.
Polygraph testing has expanded in
recent years in the private sector, as
businesses have sought them out and
used these devices for preemployment
screening, for internal security investi-
gations to determine who gets hired
and who gets fired, who advances in
his or her career and who is set aside.
At the same time, the validity of poly-
graph testing has come into wide ques-
tion all across this country. The Office
of Technology Assessment has report-
ed that available research evidence
does not establish the scientific validi-
ty of polygraph testing for personnel
security screening.
Twenty-two States and the District
of Columbia have restrictions on the
use of polygraphs for testing for pri-
vate employment, but that is not
enough. Companies can circumvent
that provision by hiring people in
States that do not restrain or restrict
or prohibit polygraph testing and then
transfer their personnel' into those
more restrictive States.
The numbers speak for themselves.
The American Polygraph Association
says that 98 percent of the 2 million
polygraph tests given each year are
given by private business, three-
fourths of those for preemployment
screening. I cannot think of a more in-
trusive and dangerous device to inflict
upon the people of this country than
polygraph testing on such a wide-
spread indiscriminate basis.
I think this legislation is a reasona-
ble approach, one that protects the in-
tegrity of the individual and it is a bill
that we ought to pass.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. FRENZEL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I am
one who has had some experience with
these particular kinds of machines in
private business and in all the cases
where I saw it applied, there was a
positive result. I have not heard
anyone claim a hundred percent accu-
racy for the process. I have not heard
anyone claim a hundred percent accu-
racy for interviews or drug tests or
even thermometers, as far as that
goes.
I myself probably am a dangerous
weapon. I interview a lot of employees.
I am certainly not a skilled interview-
er. I am considerably less dangerous
than a polygraph.
But what this bill does is to bar the
use of polygraphs. It means you
cannot use them in connection with
any other system, machinery or proc-
esses, that you might want to use to
check on employees in which cases
you need some very strong security.
The bill is a little bit inconsistent be-
cause it does allow exceptions, and as
the gentleman from Florida has point-
ed out, you are going to have poly-
graph use whether this bill passes or
not.
My personal preference would be
that there would be no messing
around in the private use of poly-
graphs by the Congress.
I understand 41 States have laws on
the books relating to polygraph use or
standards, and in my judgment it is a
splendid area in which the States
should legislate and a wonderful area
for the heroes of Congress to stop
messing; but if we are going to pass a
bill, we certainly should have the good
sense to accept the Young-Darden sub-
stitute, because at least there we have
some consistent principles that will
protect everyone, not just those who
were fortunate enough to get exclu-
sions from the bill.
I think any rule of good reason and
sanity would lead us to support the
Darden-Young substitute, if indeed we
have to legislate in this field at all.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words. I raise in opposition to the
amendment, but really for the purpose
of thanking my colleagues who have
been more than patient during what
has been really a good debate and has
focused by both the opponents of my
bill and the supporters of my bill and
the opponents and supporters of the
substitute now before us have focused
on the merits and the demerits of the
lie detector.
We are now approaching just a few
minutes short of 10 hours on this bill.
It is interesting that we can pass a rec-
onciliation bill within an hour. We can
spend $100 billion within just a few
minutes with no debate, but it takes 10
hours to get passed an emotional issue
like this.
The debate has been good. The at-
tention has been good.
Mr. Chairman, orderliness of the
House has of course been excellent
and we appreciate everyone's involve-
ment in this.
I would also remind the Members
that we just finished voting on this a
year ago on this very substitute and
turned it down 173 to 241. I urge you
to turn it down again tonight.
Mr. BILIRAKLS. Mr: Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida [Mr. Y017NG].
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank the gentleman for yield-
ing. I will be very brief.
I listened to the debate of those who
say that the polygraph does not work.
If it does not work, I say to my dear
friends and colleagues, if it does not
work, why are you supporting a bill
that allows it to be used in all the Fed-
eral Government, every State govern-
ment, every county, every city, and
every political subdivision in America,
the FBI, contractors, security guards,
those involved in the drug industry? If
it does not work, why are you going to
support a bill that allows it to be used
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE Neveathar4, 1987
without, OW professionalism in mil-
lions end millione of oases? , -
I thank tilletiontlentan for Pieltibitg.
Mr. BLIARAKUL Mr. Cliairman,
endorse the ,Iyetthleatan's remarks and
ask that. we suppeet?the bill.
Mr. PARFilikAtt,Cheirinan. Our oationld se-
way agencies repeatedly come to to asking
for authosily to otinduct polygraph examina-
tions as part of- their programa to mord our
national sects*
So tar this year. this ;body has voted twice
to, support. mesa=? that provide for, poly-
graph testing-by the Federal .Government.
May 11, themote wee 346 to 44 in favor of an
amendment. offered, by the gentleman from
Florida Wir. YOUtiel to the Defense Detail-
meat aultiontallon bet The measure *deb-
Ashes a "permanent polygraph program for na- -
tionatationseagenoles. , -
Then lust 1 mcinth freer, on June 16, there
was a unanireotat -vote to back- an amendment
offered by the gentleman from -Florida (Mr.
MICA) to the' Math Depertrosnrs adhorization
bill. That amendmentincludedianguago to l'a-
quire cowtietintelligence polygraph EXantfle.
bons for MeMiXtrik Of the Dittiomatte Security
Services.
The increasing prevalence of espionage
and dwelt if, our Government underscores
the need fer polygraph examinations. And
these latest votes, -whish are only the 'sleet in
a swish Ow air oonsistentbacking -for the
use etpolyeraph teeing to protect stsnation-
at seoudItt
The Congren Nese Mies on the use of
polygraph awatialtedions toprotect this building
and the Members and staff who work, hem.
The Capitol-Pales ass the, polygraph to
sages:their amMicants and to twestigate spe-
cific incidwits. Incelding suspected drug use.
That the -Compress Cella on the polygraph is
still another testament to its value.
The need for polygraph testing in protect
eves, propany ant valuabie ink:inflation does
not end here. The polygraph is indispensable
in polite** the customers, employees, in-
ventories and assets of American business
and industry as AVIA and they also are entitled
to access to-the polygraph.
We would be establishing a dangerous
double standard if we were to approve this
legislaSon to strip business and industry of
access to the same investigative toot that the
Government obviously finds to be so useful.
Private business and industry also have a
serious responsibility to protect people and
assets. The polygiaph enables them to better
carry out theft responsiblities to protect the
health and welfare of our citizens.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the ban on
polygraph testing in the private sector end in-
stead to support the more reasonable, and
workable, measure introduced by the gentle-
man from Florida [Mr. Vowel and the gentle-
man from Georgia [Mr. DARD64] to set nation-
wide standards for testing and examiner quali-
fications. If the polygraph technique is accept-
abie in protecting national security arid other
Government interests, if should also be ac-
ceptable to protect the interests of business
and Marshy.
Mr. DREIER of California. Mr. Chairman. I
rise today is support of the Young-Denien
substitute es the Polygraph Reform Act. The
substitute better liddresses the concerns of
employees** iiinpicgers over abuse in ad-
ministering polygraph SOMMIOMMAL This
01610418 would. gusranten.specific itghts, ,to
employees asked to take a .polygraph and
would-impose stringent Federal standards on
polygrithlt,otaminers.
to addition, the subs*
latecespenstlietights et Stale and local gov-
ernments Isismose their own more stringent
slander* on the polygraph, industry.
Though not Wallas. polygraphs have dem-
onstrated a certain acomacy in determining a
subtects tndlikdoess. I do not believe an em-
;toyer should be deprived of die useful tool
as a memo to hire trustworthy employees any
more -then he should be deprived of the im-
peding tedmiques, eta personal interview, ref-
-*eons or mitten application. All of these
loath should be used together to :select the
most griddled candidate. I would like to point
out that the Young-Darderr -substitute would
wows that no: entplownent deflation would be
made based sole* span the results of a poly-
graph examination or an employee's refusal to-
take a PolYgraPn-
Vihen the House paladin the 99th Con-
gress a similar ban on the use ot polygraph
seaminations in the private sector, a number
of nomptions were added to the bill which
had the effect of permitting polygraph tests in
selected industrtes. VA*. I supported these
iletemplicwok Congress amnia a 'double stand-
ani by enempeng day care facilities, nursing
homes. pharmaceutical firms, armored -air and
-minty guard agencies. and the nuclear
power industry from the ben on polygraph es-
antinations. Ely retaining the use of the poly-
waph for all titivate sector eropbyers the
Young-Darden substitute would treat all indus-
tries equally.
Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mr. Chairman, as we
debate the melts of the polygraph technique
and its value Si the workplace, I ask my col-
leagues to focus for a moment, on a larger
Issue at stake hare. Namely: the Constitution.
It is our responsibility to protectand ensure
the proper balance of power between the
States and the Federal Government.
There is no constitutional basis for a Feder-
al ban on polygraph testae in the pirate
sector. Article I Odes* states:
The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution. nor Prohibited
by It to the State*, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.
Thirty-one States already have passed poly-
graph legislation. At Nast four of them chose
to outlaw polygraph testing completely. The
others have developed various regulatory ap-
proaches that meow polygraph testing under
certairl conditions.
It is clear VW the States are accepting their
responsibility to regulate this controversial in-
strument.
The approach presented to us today to ban
the polygraph is an overreaction that under-
mines the hard and careful work that the
States we doing to develop their own bodies
of law. The principles of federalism call on us
not to intervene in matters that are the re-
sponsibility of the States and in which there is
no overriding need for a uniform national
POW
In fact, the heated debate among scientists
and academicians about the validity of the
polygraph is 43Widenoe that this issue has not
bees noisived to the point that any national
point could be lorraulated. This appears to be
an appropriate was in which to .allow the
States to develop various approaches that auk
their citizensbast, Andlbot are demonstragrig
their *NW to dollish
-Further. *hasfradliensity been the purview
of the States Itt-legillte cornmetwas Within
their. batman's: They base eiechenisms to
certify that asse-whodelivar health
Ices in to residents arequellfied to do so. They
ovetess inewsnos. and. real :estate -brokers,
utility companies, disallow lawyers, and den-
tists,* nantsjusts tow. -
The Stades we equipped to regulate the
services altered- by polygraph mesminers as
well, as meat have demonstrated by passing
gear own legieletion. -
Assistant Paniney Gemmed John Bolton
sent e letter to the. Congress addressing this
into. No mirk
- Polystaph intense may be more appropri-
ately deterred by restricting the conditions
under width. Poinrephi are administered
rather than prohibiting:their-me altogeth-
er. The States are better equipped to make
those detentrksationa
He suggsalet that the States can .provide
avenues for app.* it someone feels his or
her rights have been violated. States also can
regulate the finds of questions that we asked,
the equipment that is used, and the qualifica-
toned examiners.
I agree with Mr. Bolton that the Federal
Government should not prohibit the use-of the
polygraph in the private sector. There should
not- be a flat, nationwide ban on the poly-
graph, but its* use *hated lati regulated on a
case-by-cove, and State-by-State basis, as
provided-try-the Constitulond- -
The ClIAIRMAN. The (Mention is on
the amendment in the nature of a sub-
stitute offered by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Yeurie3.'
The question owe taken; and the
Chairman "announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
SWOPS= TOTE
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was Ordered.
The vote wait taken by electronic
device. and there were?ayes 169, noes
242. not voting 22. as follows:
Moll No. 4131
Anderson
Archer
Anney
Badharn
Baker
Ballenger
Barnard
Bartlett
Batman
Bennett
Bentley
Bereuter
Bevill
Biliraus
Bliley
Boulter
Broomfield
Buechner
Bunning
Burton
Byron
Callahan
CamPbell
Chandler
Chapman
Cherwell
Cheney
Coate
Coble
Coleman (MO)
Cembeet
Craig
AYE-189
Dammeyer HefleY
Darden Hefner
Daub Herter
de la Claraa Wier
MIAS Hochbruedisser
Derrick Holloway
DeWine Hopkins
Dickinson lincitaby
DioGuardl Hunter
Doriwi (CA) Hutto
Dowdy Hyde
Dreier Inhofe
Edwards (OK) Ireland
Emerson Jenkins
Erdreich Jones (TN)
Fawn ICasich
Fields Konnyu
Flippo Kyl
Frensel Latomarsino
GalleglY Latta
Gekas Leath (TX)
Goodling Lent
Gradison Lewis (CA)
Grant Lewis (FL)
Gunderson Lightfoot
Hall (OH) Livingston
Hall (TX) Lowery (CA)
Hamraersehmidt Luian
Hansen Lukens. Donald
Hastert Lungren
nether Mack
Hayes (1.1i) MacKay
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05 : CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
November .4,1987
Madigan Ravenel
Martenee Ray
Martin (NY) Rhodes
McCandleso Roberts
McCollum Rimers
MeEwen Roth
McGrath Rouketna
McMillan (NC, Rewland(CIA)
Meyers Saiki
Mica Schaefer
Michel Schuette
Miller (OH) Schulze
Montgomery Sensenbrenner
Moorhead Shaw
Morrison (WA) Shumway
Myers Shuster
Nelson Nokia
Nichols Skeen
Ortiz Slaughter (VA)
?Klee Smith (NS)
Packard Smith (TX)
Parris Smith, Denny
Pastrami (OR)
Pickle Smith, Robert
Porter (NH)
Quillen Smith, Robert
(OR)
NOES-242
Ackerman Fogttetta
Murk& Foley
Alexander Ford (MI)
Andrews Ford (TN)
Annunzio Frank
Anthony Frost
Applegate Gallo
Aspin Garcia
Attain Clanks
AuCoin Cleidenson
Barton Cllbbons
Bates Gilman
Bellenson Glickman
Berman Gonzalez
Bilbray Gorden
Boehlert Grandy
Boggs Gray (IL)
Boland Gray (PA)
Bonier Green
Bonker Gregg
Boroki Guarini
Bosco Hamilton
Beecher Harris
Boxer Hawkins
Brennan Hayes (IL)
Brooks Henry
Brown (CA) Hertel
Bruce Horton
Bryant Houghton
Bustarnante Hoyer
Cardin Hubbard
Carper Hughes
Clarke Jacobs
Clinger Jeffords
Coelho Johnson (CT)
Coleman (TX) Johnson (SD)
Collins Jontz
Conte Kartjorski
Conyers Kastenrneler
Cooper Kennedy
Coughlin Kennelly
Courter Kildee
Coyne Kleezka
Crockett Kolbe
Davis (IL) Hotter
Davis (MI) Kostmayer
DeFazio LaFalce
Dellurns Lancaster
Dicks Lantos
Dingell Leach (IA)
Dixon Lehman (CA)
Donnelly Lehman (FL)
Dorgan (ND) Leland
Downey Levin (MI)
Durbin Levine (CA)
Dwyer Lewis (GA)
Dymally Lloyd
Dyson Lowry (WA)
Early Luken, Thomas
Eckert Manton
Edwards (CA) Markey
English Martin (IL)
Espy Martam
Evans Matsui
Fascell Mavroules
Fazio Mazzoll
Feighan McCloskey
Fish McCurdy
Flake McDade
Florio McHugh
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Solomon
SPence
Stangeland
Stenholm
Stratton
Stump
Sundquist
Sweeney
Swindell
Tauzin
Taylor
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (GA)
Upton
Valentine
Vander Jagt
Viscaneviels
Walker
Whittaker
Wolf
Wortley
Wylie
Young (FL)
McMillen (MD)
Winne
Miller (CA)
Miller (WA)
Mineta
Moakley
Mollohan
Moody
Morella
Morrison (CT)
Mrazek
Murphy
-Murtha
Nagle
Hatcher
Neal
Nielson
Nowak
Dakar
Oberstar
Obey
Olin
Owens (NY)
Panetta
Patterson
Pease
Pelost
Penny
Pepper
Perkins
Petri
Pickett
Price (IL)
Price (NC)
Pitmen
Ashen
Rangel
Regula
Richardson
Ridge
Rinaldo
Ritter
Robinson
Recline
Roe
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland (CT)
Roybal
Russo
Sabo
Savage
Sawyer
Saxton
Seheuer
Schneider
Schroeder
Schumer
Shays
Sikerski
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter (NY)
Smith (FL)
Smith (IA)
Smith Ci.T1
Snowe
Solara
Sprott
St Germain
Staggers
Stallings
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Swift
Einar
Talton
Taulte
Torres
Biaggi
Brown (CO)
Carr
Clay
Crane
Daniel
?mean
Gephardt
Torricelli
Towns
Trate:ant
Treader
Vento
Viscloske
Vollmer
Walmen
Watkins
Weber
Weldon
Wheat
Whttten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Welpe
Wyden
Yates
Yatron
Young (AK)
Owens (UT)
Roemer
Sharp
Odail
WORRIBD
Weiss
NOT VOTING-22
Gingrich
Howard
Jones (NC)
KaPtur
Kemp
Lipinski
Lott
Molinari
0 2110
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Roemer for, with Mr. Gephardt
against.
Mr. Brown of Colorado for, with Ms.
Raptor against.
Mr. Loftier. with Mr. Weiss against.
Mrs. BOXER changed her vote from
"aye" to "no".
Mr. CAMPBELL changed his vote
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.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the Committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The Committee amendment in the
nature to.
asubstitute, as amended.
w
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose;
and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
FOLEY] having assumed the chair, Mr.
Gortzeuzz. 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. 1212) 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 295, 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
the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the passage of the bill.
11 9597
INICOASSIS von
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker. I
demand a recorded votel.
A recorded vote was Ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were?ayes 254, noes
158, not voting 21. as follows:
Ackerman
Akita
Alexander
Anderson
Andrews
Annanzio
Anthony
Applegate
Aspin
Atkins
AuCoin
Bates
Beifenson
Bentley
Berman
Berth
Bilbray
Boehlert
Beggs
Boland
Bonior
Honker
Borski
BOSCO
Boucher
Emitter
Boxer
Brennan
Brooks
Broomfield
Brown (CA)
Bruce
Bryant
Bustamante
Byron
Campbell
Cardin
Carper
Clarke
Clinger
Coelho
Coleman (TX)
Collins
Conte
Conyers
Cooper
Coughlin
Courter
Coyne
Crockett
Davis (IL)
Davis (MI)
DeFazio
Denims
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Donnelly
Dorgan (ND)
Dowdy
Downey
Durbin
Dwyer
Dyrnally
Dyson
Early
Eckert
Edwards (CA)
English
Erdreich
ESPY
Evans
Farwell
Fazio
Feighan
Fish
Flake
Flippo
Florio
Feglietta
Foley
Ford (MI)
Ford (TIM
Frank
Gallo
(Roll No. 4141
AYES-254
Garcia Ortiz
Gaydos Owens (NY)
Geidenson Panetta
Gibbons Pashayan
Gilman Pease
Glickman Peloal
Gonzalez Penny
Gordon Pepper
Gray (IL) Perkins
Gray (PA) Petri
Green Pickle
Gregg Price (IL)
Guarini Price (NC)
Hamilton Purse('
Harris Quillen
Hawkins Rahail
Hayes (IL) Rangel
Hayes (LA) Regula
Henry Richardson
Hertel Ridge
Hochbs s.)Jum. Rinaldo
Horton Ritter
Houghton Robinson
Royer Rodino
Hubbard Roe
Hughes Rose
Jacobs Rostenkowski
Jeffords Rowland (CT)
Johnson (CP) RoYbal
Johnson (19D) Russo
Jontz Sabo
Kanjorski Savage
Hastenmeter Sawyer
Kennedy Saxton
Kennelly Scheuer
Kildee Schneider
Kleczka Schroeder
Hotter Schuette
Kostmayer Shays
LaFaice Sikorski
Lancaster Skaggs
Lantos Skelton
Leach (IA) Slattery
Lehman (CA) Slaughter (NY)
Lehman (FL) Smith (FL)
Leland Smith (IA)
Levin (MD Smith (NJ)
Levine (CA) Snowe
Lewis (GA) Solara
Lloyd St Germain
Lowry (WA) Staggers
Luken, Thomas Stallings
Manton Stark
Markey Stokes
Martin (IL) Stratton
Martinez Studds
Matsui Swift
Mavroules *noir
Mazzoli Tauke
eleCloskey Tauzin
McCurdy Tones
McDade Terricelli
McHugh Towns
McMillen (MD) Traficant
Mlume Treater
Miller (CA) Upton
Miller (WA) Viusder Jagt
Mineta Vento
Moakley Vtsclosky
Mollohan Volknier
Moody Walgren
Morella Watkins
Morrison (CT) Weber
Mrazek Weiss
Murphy Wheat
Murtha Whitten
NW* Williams
Hatcher Wilson
Neal Wise
Nielson Wolpe
Nowak Wyden
Oakar Yates
?heroine Yatron
Obey Young (AK)
Olin
neclassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3
H 9598
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE November3 1987
NOES--1158
Archer Hansen Packard
ArmeY Hastert Parris
Badham Hatcher Patterson
Baker Hefley Pickett
Ballenger Hefner Porter
Barnard Merger Ravenel
Bartlett Hiler Ray
Barton Holloway Rhodes
Bateman Hopkins Roberts
Bennett Huckaby Rogers
Bereuter Hunter Roth
Bilirakis Hutto Roukema
Bliley Hyde Rowland (GA)
Buechner Inhofe Solid
Bunning Ireland Schaefer
Burton Jenkins Schulze
Callahan Jones (TN) Sensenbrennez
Chandler Kasich Shaw
Chapman Kolbe Shumway
Chappell Konnyu Shuster
Cheney Kyl Sisisky
Coats Lagomarsino Skeen
Coble Latta Slaughter (VA)
Coleman (MO) Leath (TX) Smith (NE)
Combest Lent Smith (TX)
Craig Lewis (CA) Smith, Denny
Danriemeyer Lewis (FL) (OR)
Darden Lightfoot Smith, Robert
Daub Livingston (NH)
de la Garza Lowery (CA) Smith, Robert
DeLay Lujan (OR)
Derrick Lukens, Donald Solomon
DeWine Lungren Spence
Dickinson Mack Sprott
DioGuardi MacKay Stangeland
Dornan (CA) Madigan Stenholm
Dreier Marlenee Stump
Edwards (OK) Martin (NY) Sundquist
Emerson McCandless Sweeney
Powell McCollum Swindell
Fields McEwen . Tallon
Frenzel McGrath Taylor
Frost McMillan (NC) Thomas (CA)
Gallegly Meyers Thomas (GA)
Gekas Mica Valentine
Gingrich Michel Vucanovich
Goodling Miller (OH) Walker
Gradison Montgomery Weldon
Grandy Moorhead Whittaker
Grant Morrison (WA) Wolf
Gunderson Myers Wortley
Hall (OH) Nelson Wylie
Hall (TX) Nichols Young (FL)
Hammerachmidt Oxley
NOT VOTING-21
Biaggi Gephardt Molinari
Brown (CC)) Howard Owens (UT)
Carr Jones (NC) Roemer
Clay Kaptur Schumer
Crane Kemp Sharp
Daniel Lipinski DdaU
Duncan Lott Waxman
0 2125
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Gephardt for, with Mr. Brown of Col-
orado against.
Mr. Kemp for, with Mr. Crane against.
Ms. Kaptur for, with Mr. Lott 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.
AUTHORIZING THE CLERK TO
MAKE CORRECTIONS IN THE
ENGROSSMENT OF H.R. 1212,
EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH PRO-
TECTION ACT
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that in the en-
grossment of the bill, the Clerk be au-
thorized to make corrections in section
numbers, punctuation, and cross-refer-
ences and to make such other techni-
cal and conforming changes as may be
necessary to reflect the actions of the
House in amending the bill, H.R. 1212,
the Employee Polygraph Protection
Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
DURBIN). Is there objection to the re-
quest of the gentleman from Califor-
nia?
There was no objection.
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. 1212, the Employee Polygraph
Protection Act, the bill just passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PRO-
VIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION
394, FURTHER CONTINUING AP-
PROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR
1988
Mr. PEPPER, from the Committee
on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 100-419) on the reso-
lution (H. Res. 302) providing for the
consideration of the joint resolution
(H.J. Res. 394) making further con-
tinuing appropriations for the fiscal
year 1988, and for other purposes,
which was referred to the House Cal-
endar and ordered to be printed.
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PRO-
VIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF H.R. 435, UNIFORM POLL
CLOSING TIME FOR PRESIDEN-
TIAL ELECTIONS
Mr. PEPPER, from the Committee
on Rules submitted a privileged report
(Rept. No. 100-240) on the resolution
(H. Res. 303) providing for the consid-
eration of the bill (H.R. 435) to amend
title 3, United States Code, and the
Uniform Time Act of 1966 to establish
a single poll closing time in the conti-
nental United States for Presidential
general elections, which was referred
to the House Calendar and ordered to
be printed.
RESIGNATION AS MEMBER OF
COAOLII-rrik: ON GOVERNMENT
OPERATIONS
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid
before the House the following resig-
nation as a member of the Committee
on Government Operations:
Sousa OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, DC, November 4, 1987.
Hon. Jut WRIGHT,
Speaker of the House, H-204 Capitol, Wash-
ington, DC.
DEAR Ma. SPEAKER: Effective today, I
tender my resignation from the House Com-
mittee on Government Operations.
With kind regards. I KM,
Sincerely,
Emu KOENTU,
Member of 0011gren.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. With-
out objection, the resignation is ac-
cepted.
There was no objection.
RESIGNATION AS MEMBER OF
COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT
MARINE AND FISHERIES
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid
before the House the following resig-
nation as a member of the Committee
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
noun OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, DC, November 4, 1987.
Hon. Jim WRIGHT,
Speaker of the House, The Capitol, H-204,
Washington, DC.
DEAR Ma. SPEAKER: I am writing to inform
you that I hereby resign from the House
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisher-
ies effective this date.
Sincerely,
JOSEPH J. DIOGTJAEDI,
Member of Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. With-
out objection, the resignation is ac-
cepted.
There was no objection.
ELECTION AS MEMBERS TO CER-
TAIN STANDING COMMTTTEES
OF THE HOUSE
Mr. KOBLE. Mr. Speaker, by direc-
tion of the Republican Conference and
on behalf of the Republican leader I
offer a privileged resolution (H. Res.
304) and ask for its immediate consid-
eration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows:
H. RES. 304
Resolved, That the following named Mem-
bers be, and they were hereby elected to the
following standing committees of the House
of Representatives:
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fish-
eries: Mr. Konnyu of California.
Committee on Government Operations:
Mr. Shays of Connecticut.
Committee on Science, Space and Tech-
nology: Mr. Shays of Connecticut.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
VACATING OF APPOINTMENT OF
ADDITIONAL CONFEREE ON
H.R. 2713, DISTRICT OF COLUM-
BIA APPROPRIATIONS, 1988
The SPEAKER pro tempore. With-
out objection, the Chair's prior ap-
pointment today of Mr. WAtioNs of
Oklahoma as a conferee on the bill
H.R. 2713 is vacated.
There was no objection.
The Clerk will notify the Senate of
the change in conferees.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2011/12/05: CIA-RDP90M00004R001000160007-3