S. 1341, A BILL TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES .

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130031-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 13, 2001
• Sequence Number: 31
• Publication Date: June 2, 1975
• Content Type: OPEN

June , 1975 Approved For T :690 R~77"000800130031-9
fendant shows by a preponderance of evi-
dence that at the time of the violation It was
not intentional and resulted, from a bona
fide error notwithstanding the maintenance
of reasonable procedures to assure compli-
ance and avoidance of error."
SEc. 15. (a) Section 621(a) of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act is amended-
(1) by redesignating paragraph (1) as
paragraph (2) and inserting the following
before such redesignated paragraph:
"(1) The Federal Trade Commission shall
prescribe regulations to carry out the pur-
poses of this title. Such regulations may con-
tain such classifications, differentiations, and
other provisions, and may provide for such
adjustments and exceptions as in the judg-
ment of the Commission are necessary or
proper to effectuate the purposes of this title
to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof,
or to facilitate compliance therewith. Any
reference to any requirement imposed under
this title or. any provisions thereof includes
reference to the regulations of the Commis-
sion under this title or the provisions thereof
in question.";
(2) by inserting after "documents," in
paragraph (2) as redesignated the phrase
"examination and production of consumer
reports and consumer reporting agency
files,".
(b) Section 604 of such Act is amended
(for himself, Mr.
MATHIAs, and Mr.
thereof "Except as provided in section 621
ments as to the need for a very limited
(a) (2), a". _ use in the intelligence field. The total
(c) Section 608 of such Act is amended !number o such tests under the resent
inserting after "604," the following: "tnd regulations. however, suggests a serious
except as provided in section 621 (a) (2.);". b f th 1it d +i- th t
mia UXCe
a
r
has been ultimately successful. I believe,
Mr. President, that the Senate has given
the issue perhaps more than. adequate
consideration and that the time is ripe
for final action.
My colleague, the distinguished Con-'
gressman from New York. Mr. KOCH, had
introduced a similar -mill in the other
bod and he re its the likelihood of
e
favorable House ac ion, I OgM also not
Mr. President. that no Member o the
Congress has devoted more of his time
and given more thorough study to the
entire issue of privacy than has ED KOCH.
He should, I believe, be congratulated for
his leadership in this area.
Senator Ervin's efforts were successful
in convincing the execu ?_ve branch
voluntarily limit its use of lie detector
jests. Under Civil Service Regulations
issued in January 1972 the use of these
di -ices was restricted to agencies having
intelligence or counterintelligence re-
sponsi i i les and upon written. authori-
zation b the Chairman of the Civil Serv-
ce ommission. Yet m 9 , almost 7,000
such tests were authorized. This bill bans
the use of lie detectors by any Federal,
enc Out a r. p . -1. T wi fir t.
a Ilse O eve
y
p
might be justifled_ Accordingly. until I
S 9139
procedure. As to the first two of these
three points, I ask unanimous consent
to have printed in the RECORD at this
point in my remarks an excellent staff
study prepared by the Staff of the Con-
stitutional Rights Subcommittee on the
reliability and constitutionality of poly-
graphs.
There being no objective, the study
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows: -
TIIE POLYGRAPH TEST: RELIABILITY
The theory behind the polygraph proce-
dure and its results involves physiological
responses purportedly related to the act of
lying. It is professed that lying causes con-
flict to arise within the individual subject.
The conflict produces fear and anxiety
which, in turn, produce physiological
changes which the polygraph devices can
measure and record. Thus, the assumption
underlying the polygraph test is that a uni-
form relationship exists between an act of
deception, certain specific emotions, and
various bodily changes 23
A typical polygraph examination may con-
tain several features. The subject to be in-
vestigated is usually ushered into a waiting
room where it is hoped he will avail himself
of the favorable polygraph literature left for
his attention. His reactions to these readings
are often observed by the secretary or recep-
tionist and reported to the examiner prior
to his encounter with the subject 24 The pur-
pose of this conditioning is that the person
to be examined carry with him into the test a
belief in the reliability, accuracy and even
infallibility of the polygraph. Examiners
maintain that it is important and helpful
,n obt.a.ining good res
onses for an individual
p
an
the
co be convinces that his lies will be aetected,
_ - _
Reporting Act is amended by adding at the -~ '
end thereof the following new sentence: "The exception could be sufficiently restricted, thus heightening his sensitivity to the ques-
Federal Trade Commission is authorized to I will propose a total ban. tions and the likelihood of clear physiolog-
determine whether such inconsistencies exist. It is not in the Federal Government, ical changes. 21 The "spy" in the waiting room
The Commission may not determine that any but rather in the commercial won w ere reports to the examiner the degree of skepti-
State law Is inconsistent with any provision a invasion of privacy is taking place cism or acceptance exhibited by the subject
of this chapter if the Commission determines while reading the polygraph literature. In
that such law gives greater protection to the b ).V a-scale use of these devices. There this way, it is claimed, the examiner can bet-
consumer." are no relic le statistics on a nun er ter understand and compensate for all types
EFFECTIVE DATE of lie detector tests givenf v nriva ex- of recorded responses to his questions.
SEc. 17. Section 609(d) of the Fair Credit' aminers for business purposes, but Still prior to his being connected to the
Reporting Act, as added by this Act, shall knowledgeable estimates have range machine, the subject is brought into the test-
become effective 60 days after the date of from a low of to a high or Ing area, usually a room sparsely decorated
enactment. per year. This bill would, the rfore, Tar and furnished to avoid the presence of out-
t side distractions or stimuli. At this point,
d
t
By Mr. BAYH
TUNNEY, Mr.
ABOUREZK) :
S. 1841. A bill to protect the constitu-
tional rights of citizens of the United
States and to prevent unwarranted in-
vasion of their privacy by prohibiting the
use of the polygraph type equipment for
certain purposes. Referred to the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I am today
introducing, together with the distin-
guished chairman of the Subcommittee
on Constitutional Rights, Mr. TUNNEY,
Mr. MATHIAS, and Mr. ABOUREZK, a bill to
bar the use of polygraphs, Psychological
Stress Evaluators-PSE-and other me-
chanical or electrical devices used by the
Federal Government or by employers en-
gaged in interstate commerce. Strict
limitations of the use of polygraphs have
been considered by the Senate on a num-
ber of occasions in recent years. Our dis-
tinguished former colleague, Mr. Ervin,
guided no fewer than five separate bills
through the Senate which would have
placed some limits on the use of poly-
graphs by the executive branch. Yet after
almost a decade of. effort, no legislation
In n
any person engage
e.. -3 a com- some polygraph operators may make use of
merce from "permitting, requiring, or "two-way" mirrors to further observe the
requesting" any employee or applicant to individual's behavior?e Then, with the ma-
take a lie detector test, and it would en- chine in view, the examiner typically con-
force this prohibition with criminal ducts a preliminary interview which aids him
sanctions. in assessing the type of person he Is dealing
I should emphasize, Mr. President, 'With, and in obtaining other knowledge he
that the bill would not in any way impede might deem helpful In his interpretation o-
the results of the polygraph test?7 The gen-
law enforcement authorities from mak- eral questions pertaining to the circum-
ing use of the. investigative tool which stances being investigated are typically gone
a polygraph provides if there is reason to over to familiarize the subject with them and
believe that a crime has been committed, to allow the operator the opportunity to alter
I believe, Mr. President, that the rec- them where he feels it is necessary to elicit
clear, definite responses.28 The pneumoeraph
ord presented to the Senate over the past tube, measuring respiration, is then placed
decade suggests three essential reasons around the subject's chest, the blood pres-
which justify the legislation we intro- sure and pulse cuff around his upper arm,
duce today. First, clear evidence exists and electrodes, which record galvanic skin
as to the questionable reliability of the responses (the change in the electrical con-
results of these tests. Second, an analy- ducivity of the skin due to increased skin
sis of the judicial development of the perspiration) are attached to his hands.
The examiner then proceeds with the ques-
constitutional right of privacy reveals tioning as he sits behind his control desk
that the use of lie detector tests poses watching and marking the recordings of
serious problems under the first, fourth, these devices.
and fifth amendments, all of which were How reliable is this process in determining
cited by the Supreme Court in Griswold the veracity of an individual? A study con-
against Connecticut as constituting the ducted at the Massachusetts Institute of
"penumbra where privacy is protected Technology concluded:
from government intrusion". Third, and . ? ? There exists no public body of knowl-
equally important to me, is the inher- edge to support the enthusiastic claims of
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130031-9
 S 9140
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130031-9 -
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 2, 1975
operators. There are no publications in re-
putable journals, no facts, no figures, tables,
or graphs. In short, there is nothing to
document the claims of accuracy or effective-
ness except bald assertions .w "
Though studies and experiments to assess
the polygraph's effectiveness have been done,
even when interpreted favorably, their re-
suits seem far from convincing of the poly-
graph's reliability. In an experiment con-
ducted for the Defense Department, subjects
were tested to determine the effect of their
faith in the polygraph on the ability of the
examiners to detect their lins8? The study
concluded that a belief in the machine's ac-
curacy did aid the detection of responses
under certain types of questioning .31 but it is
significant to note the figures derived for the
accuracy of the examiners' interpretations:
only 83 percent of the subjects were cor-
rectly classified as guilty or innocent in
the paradigm used82
Even a study conducted by a large, well-
known polygraph firm, yielded results which,
when scrutinized, are unsettling. The experi-
ment was set up so that examiners worked
independently and solely with the records of
polygraph tests" The analyses of the ten
examiners, averaged, produced 87.75 percent
accuracy in Identifying guilty and innocent
subjects84 The experimenters were quick to
point out that the examiners involvedin the
project did not have the benefit of observing
or interviewing the subject so as to "make
allowances for a resentful or angry attitude,
a condition which could cause an error in
interpretation of polygraph records." Fur-
ther, when figures were calculated separately,
experienced examiners achieved an accuracy
of 91.4 percent, whereas the accuracy of in-
experienced examiners was 79.1 percent 5'
The enthusiasm expressed by supporters of
the polygraph for results such as these seems
unfounded. Even an eight or nine percent
fallibility figure is substantial, and there is
admittedly a large degree of subjectivity in
the examiner's estimation of the subject's
state of mind. The fact that there are no
uniform standards or qualifications which
require a minimum level of competence for
examiners cast their subjective evaluations
into even greater doubt.
Polygraph promoters and examiners gen-
erally quote a 95 percent accuracy rate for
the tests performed in actual, as opposed to
experimental situations. They also hasten to
add that most errors are made in attaching
an innocent label to a guilty individual, a fact
they apparently view as comforting. The pro-
ponents' statistics are based on test results
checked against the future dispositions of
the subjects: an admission of guilt, confes-
sion to a crime, or the judgment of a jury.
Yet even these means of verification are not
conclusive. Whether or not a person has lied
can never be known beyond any doubt; the
confession or jury verdict may. in fact, be
false or wrong. The staff, in short, has found
no independent means for confirming the
results of actual polygraph examinations u
There is an established probability theory,
however, which purports to sustain the valid-
ity of polygraph results. The theory of condi-
tional probability maintains that, unless a
d.ia;nositic instrument has been demon-
strated to be completely infallible, the prob-
ability that it will be accurate in any one
test depends upon the prevalence of the
condition being diagnosed in the group being
tested:5 In a group of 1,000 subjects, suppos-
ing 25 to be liars, and with a 95 percent ac-
curacy rate assumed for the polygraph, the
conditional probability for the lie detector is
that for every one true liar, or "employment
risk," found, two people will be falsely classi-
fied as such.*
Another objection to the claims of reli-
ability for the polygraph test centers around
the meaning of the physiological responses
recorded. In hearings held before the Hou;,e
Foreign Operations and Government Infor-
mation Subcommittee, chaired by Represent-
ative John Moss, experts declared that, given
a physiological response under the polygraph
test procedure, any of three inferences could
be made: either the subject was lying; or La
was telling the truth but some emotional
factor, such as anger or embarrassment,
caused the reaction; or the response wess
generated by a neurotic pre-condition of the
subject" Other less frequent or obvious fac-
tors possibly affecting the machine-measured
replies include-extreme- nervousness; physic'-
logical abnormalities, such as heart cond -
tions, blood pressure problems, headaches at.d
colds; deep psychological problems; the u::?
of drugs and alcohol; ratigue; simple body' y
movements; and even the subject's sex
Thus, ~ he fact that peculiar physiological
responses may be caused by physiologie:,l
factors unrelated to whether the subject -s
lying casts the validity of these tests into
further disrepute.
Furthermore, are there mental -activitic-s
besides deception that can cause the physics l
changes recorded by the polygraph?_ Psych':-
atric experts state that any situation 'c.:r
stimuli that produced feelings of frustration.
surprise, pain, shame, or embarrassme"r t
could be responisble for such physiological
respon:.estl In fact, humans do respond di; -
ferently to emotional stresses. No one would
claim the physical responses to different
people would be the same even under simiitr
stimuli." Nor, for that matter, has there
been any relationship proven between lying
well as guilt, fear, or anxiety.44"
- people cannot go through life with -
out some lying, and every individual builds
up his own set of responses to the act. Lying
can conceivably result in satisfaction, excite-
ment, humor, boredom, sadness, hatred, its
well as guilt, fear, and anxiety.14"
Negative polygraph result could be
obtained because of feelings such as ho::-
tility, possessed unconsciously by a men-
tally-unbalanced subject S5
Are there other individual differences whit;i
could affect the polygraph? Studies conducted
have shown that many individlual factor-;,
Including skin pigment, may affect the gal-
vanic skin response, heartbeat, and respin..-
tory response measured by the device: In, a
study conducted for the Air Force to deter-
mine the role played by environmental stres
in, the ability to detect lies,: the exper--
menters unexpectedly discovered another po-
tential problem area. They found that the
galvanic skin reactivity of an individual wee
not predicated only upon environmental er
situational circumstances producing ir..-
creased perspiration and electrical conduc-
tivity of the skin. Instead, it appeared thet
these physical responses differed among in -
dividuals, as recorded by the polygraph, in s
way not accounted for in the experimenter:;'
predictions. Further investigation seemed to
point to biological, racially attributable diz-
ferences as the reason"
A related problem inherent in the poly-
graph Best pertains to questions of cultural
differences. It is generally recognized that
values and moralities-honesty and truth- --
are, in part, culturally acquired; a serious Us
in one person's view could, based on a dif-
ferent personal experience and back-.rounc,
be, in another's eye, inconsequential" This
throws further suspicion on the validity of
a technique which depends upon accepted
notions of morality for its value.
If the public were aware of the fallibility
of the polygraph, would its effectiveness de-
crease? An important feature of the exam -
ination procedure, as previously explained,
is the attempt to convince the subject of
the machine's accuracy. Thus, as one author-
ity notes, "Were the machine regarded a,,
capable of error, fear of detection would b,a
reduced, and this lowering of fear would re-
suit in diminishing physiological response." e,
One polygraph study concluded that the
more a guilty subject could control his own
attitudes and answers, the greater the con-
tamination he could produce in the poly-
graph results; an intelligent subject could
often succeedin eluding detection."
What is the examiner's influence in the
polygraph procedure and results? Interpreta-
tion is the essence of the process, making lie
detecting a highly subjective business. Judg-
ments about the subject's attitude and per-
sonality, about the composition of questions,
and regarding the meanings of the machine's
recordings are all made by the examiner. The
results presented are solely the assessment
of an operator of the lines recorded on the
graphs of his machine. The expertise re-
quisite in making such interpretations raises
several questions as to the reliability of
polygraph reports. Familiarity with several
medical specialties and an understanding of
clinical and social- psychology should be re-
quired and expected of examiners; yet, the
curriculum should be required and expected
of examiners; yet, the curriculum offered by
a leading polygraph school, a program lauded
by advocates as producing truly reputable
examiners, amounts to a mere 244 hours of
study with only 14 hours in psychology and
31 hours in "medical aspects." 52 Even the
mere possession of an academic degree, un-
less an advanced one in physiology or psy-
chology, should not be enough qualifications
Clearly, the level of most examiner compe-
tence across the country, when the finest of
the profession receive the minimal training
noted here, falls far short of these criteria.
Another consideration is the possibility
that examiner bias will be injected into the
test. There are examiners who sympathize
with the employer who is seeking protection
from thieving employees,TM who believe that
most of the people who resist the tests are
trying to hide something incriminating,&S
and who maintain that the polygraph is an
effective instrument for bringing out a per-
son's compulsion to confess8e The chance
for an unprejudiced examination and inter-
pretation, with underlying examiner atti-
tudes suchas these, greatly diminishes.
With this number of potential trouble-
spots involved, doubt must be cast upon
the objectivity, accuracy, and reliability of
the polygraph test. It has been noted that
the acceptance of the machine is the product
of circular logic: belief in the device induces
confession, and the rate of confessions
creates faith in the polygraph's effective-
ness.5 In reality:
"The polygrapth techniqueonly provides
measures of various autonomic responses.
The stimuli that elicit these responses, the
intervening variables (constitutional predis-
position, past learning, conscious and uncon-
scious motivation, etc.) and the interpreta-
tions made of the resulting graphs are highly
complex and are Inferencesmade from more
or less incomplete data." 58
THE POLYGRAPH TEST: CONSTITUTIONALITY
The courts have been embroiled in the
polygraph issue for a half-century, contend-
ing with questions of reliability and, in re-
lated contexts, with the deeper constitu-
tional implications for individual rights.
Reservations have - been expressed again and
again concerning the admissibility of poly-
graph results as evidence: (1) the jury's role
would be undermined by a test purportedly
as related to the determination of truth as
the polygraph; (2) the test data offered by
a defendant couldn't be cross-examined; (3)
the problems of assuring that consent to be
examined has been completely uncoerced are
great; (4) with the polygraph usable as evi-
dence, the presumption of innocence would
certainly be damaged by a refusal to take the
test; and (5) a polygraph exam could violate
the privilege against self-incrimination, % as
well as other constitutional provisions. These
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130031-9
 ..June 2,+1975 Approved ForC"y&?RffX/p2R P77 JA1iR000800130031-9
last considerations and concerns are also
relevant to the use of polygraphs in em-
ployment, where this method of investiga-
tion threatens to violate the right to privacy
possessed by every individual.
The right to privacy is not one of the spe-
cific guarantees enumerated in the Bill of
Rights. Yet it has been recognized as an im-
plicit right, intended by the Constitution
and its framers, a result of the entwinement
of express constitutional mandates and
necessary to the preservation and viability
of these liberties.
In particular, the provisions of the First
Amendment have been among those deemed
related to the right to privacy. "The right of
freedom of speech and press includes .
freedom of thought .. Without those peri-
pheral rights the specific rights would be
less secure." 99 Freedom in our thoughts and
beliefs has been long acknowledged as being
within the First Amendment freedom of
speech. In Palko v. Connecticut 91 this point
was clearly stated:
"Of that freedom [of thought, and speech]
one may say that it is the matrix, the in-
dispensable condition, of nearly every other
form of freedom. With rare aberrations a
pervasive recognition of that truth can be
traced in our history, political and legal. So
it has come about that the domain of liberty,
withdrawn by the Fourteenth Amendment.
from encroachment by the states, has been
enlarged by latter-day judgments to include
liberty of the mind as well as liberty of
action. The extension became, indeed, a logi-
cal imperative when once it was recognized
as long aso as it was, that liberty is some-
thing more than exemption from physical
restraints..." 12
Freedom of thought, then, has been held
to be a fundamental right. In fact the con-
nection between liberty of thought and the
right to keep those thoughts private is in-
escapable.
Griswold v. Connecticut"' is a landarmk
Supreme Court case upholding the consti-
tutionality of this right of privacy. The Court
stated that, along with the other amend-
ments, "the First Amendment has a penum-
bra where privacy is protected from govern-
mental Intrusion." 84
In a concurring opinion, Justice Goldberg
urged that privacy does not have to be in-
ferred from enumerated' freedoms. Instead,
the Ninth Amendment can be turned to, for
it "simply shows the intent of the Consti-
tution's authors that other fundamental per-
sonal rights should not be denied such pro-
tection or disparaged in any other way simply
because they are not specifically listed in
the first eight constitutional amendments." cn
Justice Goldberg went on to say that in
deciding what rights are fundamental we
must examine our traditions to discover the
principles rooted there. In Griswold, the con-
troversy revolved around the marriage re-
lationship and the privacy traditionally ac-
corded its intimacies. The Court declared,
"We deal with a right to privacy older than
the Bill of Rights..." 86 Certainly the right
to privacy in our minds, to speak or keep
silent about our thoughts, is one of the old-
est and most basic principles of human in-
dividuality and life. Such a valued tradition
should not be. tampered with for reasons of
alleged expediency.
Though the Griswold decision focused on
the right to privacy as peripheral to First
Amendment rights, it was noted that other
constitutional guarantees manifest this same
purpose:
"The Fourth Amendment explicitly af-
firms the 'right of the people of be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable. searches and seizures.'
The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimina-
tion Clause enables the citizen to create a
Footnotes at end of article.
zone of privacy which government may not
force him to surrender to his detriment." 17
Boyd v. United States " recognized that in
questions of privacy the Fourth and Fifth
Amendments are closely tied, as explained in -
a.passage frojn the Court's opinion:
"The principles laid down in this opinion
[of Lord Camden] affect the very essence of
constitutional liberty and security . they
apply to all invasions on the part of the gov-
ernment and its employers, of the sanctity
of a man's home and the privacies of life. It
is not the breaking of his doors and the rum-
maging of his drawers that constitutes the
essence of the offense; but it is the invasion
of his indefeasible right of personal security,
personal liberty and private property where
that right has never been forfeited by his
conviction of some public offense . . . any
forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's
own testimony or of his private papers to be
used as evidence to convict him of a crime or
to forfeit his goods is within the condemna-
tion of that judgment [of Lord Camden].
In this regard the Fourth and Fifth Amend-
ments run almost into each other." 0?
Several of the points made in Boyd can be
related to the issues of a federal employee's
rights, to the nature of'the self-incrimina-
tion and unreasonable search and seizure
protections outside of criminal proceedings.
Clearly, the Constitution does not limit these
guarantees to a criminal context. In the land-
mark decision Miranda -v. Arizona,79 in which
guidelines were first set forth for the ques-
tioning of suspects to secure the Fifth
Amendment protection, the Supreme Court
maintained that "the privilege is fulfilled
only when the person is guaranteed the right
'to remain silent unless he chooses to speak
in the unfettered exercise of his own will' " 71
The Court further noted that, "Today; then,
there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amend-
ment privilege is available outside of crimi-
nal court proceedings and serves to protect
persons in all settings in which their freedom
of action is curtailed from being compelled to
incriminate themselves." 72
These tenets of Boyd and Miranda are in-
deed relevant to employment situations and
polygraph-induced confession even- though
-the purpose of such tests Is not to elicit in-
criminating evidence for a court. Congres-
sional hearings into the use of polygraphs in
federal employment determined that:
"The polygraph technique forces an indi-
vidual to incriminate himself and confess to
past actions which are not pertinent to the
current investigation. He must dredge up his
past so he can approach the polygraph ma-
chine with an untroubled soul. The poly-
graph operator and his superiors then decide
whether to refer derogatory information to
other agencies or officials." "
The concern in Miranda was to compensate
for the coercive aura of a police station to
insure that all precautions- are taken so that
a suspect does not feel compelled to speak.
Where obtaining or retaining a job is de-
pendent upon the taking of a polygraph test,
the environment can be just as coercive. Em-
ployment is vital to existence and survival
in our modern society, and the competition
for jobs is great. The submission to polygraph
examinations is pre-employment interviews
is deemed voluntary, but the knowledge that
a refusal will automatically end the em-
ployment opportunity undermines this claim.
Furthermore, the onus of guilt, of hiding
potentially damaging revelations that accom-
panies a refusal to be tested by a polygraph
further reduces the voluntary aspect. Many
job offers are conditioned upon an agree-
ment to submit to future polygraph tests,
entirely eliminating any element of choice.
For a person seeking or obtaining a job to be
coerced to reveal private knowledge,
thoughts, and beliefs would appear repug-
nant to Supreme Court cases which recog-
nize the constitutional rights of employees"
S -9141
The price of gaining employment must not
be a surrendering of civil liberties.
The polygraph examiner's questions them-
selves can be extremely coercive resulting
from "the subject's defensive willingness to
elaborate on his answers because he fears
that unless he reveals all the details, the ma-
chine will record that he is lying even when
his basic story is true." 75 Freedom from be-
ing compelled to make self-incriminating
disclosures, a part of every citizen's right to
privacy, should be applicable to a business
setting, expecially where polygraphs are in
use, for, as one commentator summarizes:
. the nature of an employer's inquiries
about past deeds.and guilt is often indistin-
guishable from criminal interrogation. More-
over, the?loss of personal liberty or property
which would result from a criminal convic-
tion is often no more significant than the
denial of livelihood which may result from
compelled testimony concerning past and
present activities, associations, and even be-
liefs during preemployment or promotion
screening via personality and polygraph test-
mg 78?
Another matter germane to the self-in-
crimination discussion is the question of
how the responses elicited by the polygraph
machine and examiner are characterized. In
response to the growing complex of investi-
gative techniques available for the identify-
ing of a suspect in a criminal case, a distinc-
tion has emerged between physical as op-
posed to communicative evidence. Thus, a
person may be compelled to provide a sam-
ple of his handwriting, 77 to speak," or to ex-
hibit his body for identification,79 but he may
not be expected to be a source of testimonial
evidence against himself. In Schmerber v.
California," in which the Court held that
the taking of a blood sample over petitioner's
objections did not violate constitutional re-
quirements, the polygraph was discussed in
relation to the difficulties inherent in the
process of separating physical evidence from
communications. The opinion noted:
"Some tests seemingly directed to obtain
'physical evidence,' for example, lie detector
tests measuring changes in body function
during interrogation, may actually be di-
rected to eliciting responses which are essen-
tially testimonial. To compel a person to
submit to testing in which an effort will be
made to determine his guilt or innocence on
the basis of physiological responses, whether
willed or not, is to evoke the spirit and his-
tory of the Fifth Amendment." al
The technique applied to extract informa-
tion from an Individual must, also be
weighed against Fourth Amendment con-
siderations. Methods for obtaining evidence,
though in theory permissible, must, the
Court has held, adhere to other principles as
well as strict constitutional ones. In Rochin
v. California," the Court deemed it proper to
refer to the sense of the community in de-
termining whether drugs obtained from a
forced stomach pumping could be used to
achieve a conviction. The opinion concluded
that "conduct that shocks the conscience"
must be prohibited: "They are methods too
close to the rack and the screw to permit of
constitutional differentiation.""
The Fourth Amendment protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures does not
apply merely to criminal matters. "It is
surely anomalous to say that the individual
and his private property are fully protected
by the Fourth Amendment only when the
individual is suspected of criminal beha-
vior." 84 In dissenting from a 1928 opinion
upholding the constitutionality of wiretaps,
Justice Brandeis, gazing into the future, pre-
dicted and worried that:
"Advances in the psychic and related sci-
ences may bring means of exploring unex-
pressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions . .
Can it. be that the Constitution affords no
protection against such invasions of individ-
ual security?'
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130031-9
 S 9142
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130031-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE June 2, 1975
The Fourth Amendment has now been rec-
ognized as applying to more than simple
physical trespass 8 Electronic listening de-
vices,aT police "stop-and-frisk" procedures,'"
the taking of fingernail scrapings 80 all have
come under its purview. The retention of an
individual's privacy, in the face of ever in-
creasing odds against It, Is obviously a sig-
nificant concern. Courts have found it to be
their legitimate duty to protect this funds-
mental principle, as set forth in Mapp v.
Ohio: N
"We find that as to the federal govern-
ment, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments
and, as to the states, the freedom from un-
conscionable invasions of privacy and the
freedom from convictions based on coerced
confessions do enjoy an "intimate relation"
In their perpetuation of "principles of hu-
manity and civil liberty [secured] only after
years of struggle." 91
In the staff's view, polygraphs used in
employment indisputably fall within the
areas of constitutional concern presented
here. To many knowledgeable commentators
the relationship is evident' To be probed
and questioned so deeply, to be expected to
reveal personal attitudes and beliefs under
conditions such as those imposed by poly-
graph testing, is to be subjected to searches
and seizures that are unreasonable, to co-
erced self-incrimination, to loss of civil lib-
erties that amount to a true invasion of
privacy.
FOOTNOTES
Ibid., pp. 699-700.
Ibid., p. 704.
Ibid., p. 705.
ACLU Report, p. 4.
* Skolnick, op. cit., pp. 704 and 705.
A ACLU Report, p. 5.
I' Burkey, op. cit., p. 81.
,,Martin T. Orne and Richard I. Thackery,
"Methodological Studies in Detection of De-
ception," distributed by the Clearinghouse
for Federal Scientific and Technical Informa-
tion, Dept. of Commerce.
1 Ibid., summary.
Ibid.
Frank S. Horvath and John E. Reid, "The
Reliability of Polygraph Examiner Diagnosis
of Truth and Deception," The Journal of
Criminal Law, Criminology and Police
Science, vol. 62, 1971, p. 276.
=4 Ibid., p. 278.
'5 Ibid., p. 281.
Ibid, p. 278.
X Skolnik, op. cit., p. 699.
Ibid., p. 715.
q Ibid., p. 715.
Ibid., pp. 717-718.
4t1 Hearings, pp. 10-11
Ibid., pp. 12-13.
z H. B. Dearman, M.D. and B. M. Smith,
Ph.D., "Unconscious Motivation and the
Polygraph Test," The American Journal of
Psychiatry, May 1963, p. 1019.
14 Skolnick, op. cit., p. 701.
1Ibid., p. 700.
1r, Dearman and Smth, op. at., pp. 1017-
1018.
19 Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-
sion brief related in Circle K. Corp. v. EEOC.,
11.S.Ct. of Appeals, 10th Circuit, case No. 72-
1967, p. 8 (hereinafter cited as EEOC brief).
17 S. Kugelmass, "Effect of Three Levels of
Realistic Stress On Differential Psychological
Reactivities," report for the Air Force Office
of Scientific Research.
Ibid., pp. 22-23.
EEOC, brief, p. 7.
Skolnick, op. cit., p. 705.
?t Joseph F. Kubis, "Studies In Lie Detec-
tion," report for the Air Force Systems Com-
mand, N.Y. June 1982.
as Skolnick, op. cit., p. 707.
Burkey, op. cit., p. 87.
Pete J. Perras, "Polygraph Invaluable
Tool," The Charlotte Observer, July 6, 1971.
fib Franklin, loc. cit.
ae Ibid.
w Ibid.
"Dearman and Smith, op. cit., p. 1019,
w' Howard S. Altarescu, "Problems Remaai,r-
ing for the 'Generally Accepted' Poi;-
graph," 53 Boston Univ. L. Rev. 375 (1973) ,
p. 376.
60 Griswold v. Connecticut, -381 U.S.' 479
(1965). pp. 482-483.
a' 302 U.S. 319 (1937)
'Ibid., p. 327. For other related discus-
sious see Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616 (1919),
Holmes dissent; Whitney v. California, 274
U.S. 357 (1927), Brandeis concurrence.
381 U.S. 479 (1965).
41 bid., p. 483.
Ibid., Goldberg concurrence, p. 492. For
another discussion of privacy see Poe v. U71-
man, 367 U.S. 497 (1961), Harlan dissent.
w Ibid., p. 486.
61 Ibid., p. 484.
aa116 U.S. 616 (1885).
Ibid., p. 630.
70 384 US. 436 (1966).
' Ibid., p. 460, quoting Malloy v. Hogan, 378
U.S. 1 (1964).
72 Ibid., p. 467.
Tz Hearings, pp. 19-20.
74 See Slochower v. Board of Education, 350
U.S. 551 (1955) ; Garrity v. New Jersey, 885
U.S. 493 (1968); Keyishian v. Board of BQ-
gents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967).
T ACLU Report, p. 35.
Ta Hermann, op. cit., p. 131.
TT Gii:bert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967).
71 U.S. v. Dionisio, 93 S. Ct. 764 (1973).
T? U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
b0 381 U.S. 757 (1966).
'" Ibid., p. 764.
" 342 U.S. 165 (1952).
as Ibid., p. 172.
Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523
(1966), p.530.
m Olmstead, Brandeis dissent, p. 474.
Katz. v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
1T Ibid.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 (1973).
B0367 U.S. 643 (1961).
01Ibid., p. 657, quoting Bram v. U.S., 168
U.S. 532 (1897).
B2 See ACLU Report and Hermann.
Mr. BAYH. Finally, it is not mere rhes,-
oric, Mr. President, but a painful fact
that the procedures used in taking poi?-
graphs far too strikingly resemble some-
thing from George Orwell's "1984." The
prospective job applicant or employee is
situated in a waiting room to be observs'd
through a one-way mirror by the exalal-
iner who attempts to ascertain the in-
dividual's initial reaction to the entire
procedure. A polygraphist enters and
proceeds to ask seemingly innocuous con-
trol questions which assist him in deter-
mining the type of individual he is deal-
ing with. At the appropriate time, the
pneumograph tube-to measure respir.s,-
tion--1s placed about the subject's chest,
the blood pressure cuffs--sphygmom7-
ter-are secured around the upper arms
and electrodes are attached to the arms
and hands. Tension is accentuated b?--
cause a job and future, and much more,
are at stake. I do not believe, Mr. Presi-
dent, that any American should be sub-
jected to this degrading procedure.
I ask unanimous consent that the con-
clusions of the subcommittee staff study,
together with the` text of the bill be
printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material
and bill were ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
THE POLYGRAPH TEST: CONCLUSIONS
A congressional subcommittee has con-
eluded:
"There is no 'lie detector,' neither machine
nor human. People have been deceived by a
myth that a metal box in the hands of an
Investigator can detect truth or falsehood."
But whether or not the polygraph is a
myth, it seems clear that it is here to stay.
And, given modern ingenuity, it is not un-
reasonable to expect that new techniques
and devices will be devised in an attempt to
facilitate determining honesty. There are, in
fact, some already in use, The "wiggle seat"
is a new contraption for lie detecting derived
from the original polygraph. It, too, meas-.
ures and records physiological changes due
to heart action and a person's nervous move-
ments, but with an added advantage over
the polygraph. The wiggle seat's sensing is
mounted in an ordinary office chair. A sub-
ject sitting in the chair has his mechanical
energy changed to electrical energy which is
broadcast to hidden recording instruments.
Thus, the response detectioncan go on com-
pletely without the subject's knowledge.
Another type of examination that is gain-
ing acceptance in American business is the
Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE) ua The
PSE registers the FM vibrations In a person's
voice. The premise Is that under stress the
FM modulation is altered due to mouth and
throat tightening. A graphic picture of the
voice's modulations is made, and the pres-
ence and absence of stress are judged accord-
ing to the character of the markings. The
obtaining of the conversation to be assessed
can be done secretively with the use of hid-
den tape recorders. The questions posed by
this method are the same as those that critics
of the polygraph have been raising, and pro-
ponents have been trying to refute, for
years. Can the stress in a person's voice be
directly attributed to lying? Can the evalu-
ator objectively and accurately detect lies
from physiological recordings of the voice?
What of the constitutional problems of test-
ing a speaker without his knowledge, so
easily accomplished by the PSE technique?
These two innovations indicate that rather
than being curtailed, use of the polygraph is
being expanded, particularly in private busi-
ness. Attitudes of employers, insofar as poly-
graph testing is concerned, are characterized
in the following: "If a person refused to
take the test, we probably wouldn't hire
him." 117 "I use the polygraph because I got
tired of playing God. It's hard to tell things
by looking at people" t5 Even a U.S. Court
of Appeals has lent its approval to polygraph
testing:
"A statement challenged on the ground
that it was obtained [from a polygraph ex-
amination administered to petitioner as a
part of a hiring procedure] as the result of
economic sanctions must be rejected as in-
voluntary only where the pressure reasonably
appears to have been of sufficiently appreci-
able size and substance to deprive the ac-
cused of his "free choice to admit, to deny,
or to refuse an answer" ... But the threat of
discharge for a job as a driver's assistant,
which Sanney had held for one or two days,
can hardly be labelled a "substantial eco-
nomic sanction" rendering his statement in-
voluntary." vA
These comments indicate that if poly-
graphs are here to stay, so, in fact, are the
constitutional problems inherent in their
use.
The right to privacy is basic to the Ameri-
can way of life and recognized as inherent in
and guaranteed by the constitutional provi-
sions of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amend-
ments. The federal government ordinarily
strives to curtail and prevent infringements
of individual rights such as these. But the
polygraph, as a tool of public and private
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130031-9
 T~A,r~,P 2. 1.9 .5 Approved Fo ROele 0~ Al /~0:~.ECJ P _ K OAVf R000800130031-9
employers, clearly demands more attention.
Compulsory submission to a polygraph test
is an affront to the integrity of the human
personality that is unconscionable in a soci-
ety which values the retention of individuals'
privacy.'Employers have a multitude of less
objectionable resources at their disposal for
investigating applicants' backgrounds and
employees' performances. Expediency is not
a valid reason for pitting individuals against
a degrading machine and process that pry
into their inner thoughts. Limits, beyond
which invasions of privacy will not be tol-
erated, must be established. The Congress
should take legislative steps to prevent Fed-
eral agencies as well as the private sector
from requiring, requesting, or persuading
any employee or applicant for employment
to take any polygraph test. Privacy Is a fun-
damental right that must be protected by
prohibitive legislation from such unwar-
ranted invasions.
FOOTNOTES
ua Fred P. Graham, "Lie Detecting By a
Voice Is Center of Controversy," New York
Times, June 5, 1972, p. 1. .
117 Bill Bradley of Eckerd Corp. quoted in
"To Catch A Thief," Newsweek, Sept. 23, 1974,
p. 80.
us St. Petersburg, Fla. Chevrolet dealer
quoted In "To Catch A Thief," Newsweek,
Ibid.
ne From a Court of Appeals opinion, Sanney
v. Montanye, 6/20/74, reported in The United
States Law Week, 43 LW 2027, 7-23-74.
S. 1841
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That (a)
chapter 13, of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new section:
"? 246. Polygraph testing in connection with
employment
"(a) For purposes of this section," the
term-
"(1) 'polygraph test' means an examina-
tion administered to an individual by me-
chanical or electrical means to measure or
otherwise examine the veracity or truthful-
ness of such individual; and
"(2) 'employee organizations' includes any
brotherhood, council, federation, organiza-
tion, union, or professional organization
made up in whole or in part of employees and
which has as one of its purposes dealing with
departments, agencies, commissions, inde-
pendent agencies of the United States, or
with businesses and industries engaged in
or affecting interstate commerce, concern-
ing the conditionA and terms of employment
of such employees.
"(b) (1) Any officer or employee or per-
son acting for or on behalf of the United
States who willfully-
"(A) permits, requires, or requests, or at-
tempts to require or request, any officer or
employee of the United States, or any in-
dividual applying for employment as an
officer or employee of the United States, to
take any polygraph test in connection with
his services or duties as an officer, or em-
ployee, or in connection with such individ-
ual's application for employment; or
"(B) denies employment to any individ-
ual, or discharges, disciplines, or denies pro-
motion to any officer or employee of the
United States, or threatens to commit any
such act by reason of his refusal or failure
to submit to such requirement or request,
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and pun-
ished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by
imprisonment not exceeding one year, or
both.
"(2) Any person engaged in any business
or other activity in or affecting interstate
commerce, or any individual acting under
the authority of such person who willfully-
"(A) permits, requires, or requests, or
attempts to require or request any individ-
ual employed by such person or any individ.
ual applying for employment in connection
with such business or activity to take any
polygraph test in connection with his serv-
ices or duties or in connection with his
application, for employment; or
"(B) who denies employment to any in-
dividual, or discharges, disciplines, or denies
promotion to any individual employed in
connection with such business or activity,
or threatens to commt such act by reason of
his refusal or failure to submit to such re-
quirement or .request,
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and pun-
ished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by
imprisonment not exceeding one year, or
both.
"(c) (1) Whenever-
"(A) any officer or employee or any person
acting for or on behalf of the United States,
"(B) any person engaged in any business
or other activity in or affecting interstate
commerce, or any individual acting under the
authority of such person,
violates or threatens to violate any of the
provisions of subsection (b) of this section,
any employee or officer of the United States,
or any person applying for"employment in
the executive 'branch of the United States
Government, or any individual seeking to
establish civil service status or eligibility for
employment in the United States Govern-
ment, or any individual applying for employ-
ment in connection with any business or ac-
tivity engaged in or affecting interstate com-
merce, or any individual employed by a per-
son engaged in such business or activity, who
is affected c- aggrieved by the violation or
threatened violation, may bring a civil action
in his own behalf or in behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, against the offend-
ing officer or employee or person in the United
States District Court for the district in which
the violation occurs or is threatened, or for
the district in which the offending person
is found, or in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia, to pre-
vent the threatened violation or to obtain
redress against the consequences of the vio-
lation.
"(2) The district courts of the United
States shall have jurisdiction to try and
determine such civil action irrespective of
the actuality or amount of pecuniary in-
jury done or threatened, and without re-
gard to whether the aggrieved party shall
have exhausted any administrative remedies
that may be provided by law, and to issue
such restraining order, interlocutory injunc.
tion, permanent injunction, or mandatory
injunction, or enter such other judgment or
decree as may be necessary or appropriate
to prevent the threatened violation, or to
afford the plaintiff and others similarly situ-
ated complete relief against the consequences
of the violation.
"(3) With the written consent of any per-
son affected or aggrieved by a violation or
threatened violation of subsection (b) of
this section, any employee organization may
bring such action on behalf of any such
person, or may intervene in such action."
(b) The analysis of chapter 13 of such title
Is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new item:
"246. Polygraph testing in connection with
employment."
SEC. 2. The amendments made by this Act
shall become effective thirty days after the
date of enactment.
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS OF BILLS
AND RESOLUTIONS
S. 334
At the request of Mr. HATHAWAY, the
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KEN-
NEDY) was added as a cosponsor of S. 334,
S 9143
a bill to prohibit sex discrimination by
educational institutions whose primary
purpose is the training of individuals for
the military service of the United States.
S. 1000
At the request of Mr. HUGH SCOTT (for
Mr. MAGNUSON), the Senator from Ore-
gon (Mr. HATFIELD) was added as a co-
sponsors of S. 1000, a bill to prohibit the
Consumer Product Safety Commission
from restricting the sale or manufacture
of firearms or ammunition.
S. 1153
At the request of Mr. MONDALE, the
Senator from Nevada (Mr. LAXALT) was
added as a cosponsor of S. 1153, the
Truth in Contributions Act.
S. 1625
At the request of Mr. PACKWOOD, the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER),
the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
HOLLINGS), and the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. MORGAN) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1625, a bill to extend
and revise the State and Local Fiscal
Assistance Act of 1972.
8. 1776
At the request of Mr. HUGH SCOTT, the
Senator from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD)
was added as a cosponsor of S. 1776, a
bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to establish the Valley Forge
National Historical Park in the Coin-
monwealth of Pennsylvania., and for
other purposes.
S. 1801
At the request of Mr. TAFT, the Sena-
tor from South Carolina (Mr; THUR-
MOND) was added as a cosponsor of S.
1801, a bill to provide an. alternative
plan for providing essential rail services
to the Midwest and Northeast regions of
the United States, to modernize certain
railroad procedures, and for other pur-
poses.
SENATE RESOLUTION 158
At the request of Mr. PACKWOOD, the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. STEVENS), the
Senator from Michigan (Mr. PHILIP A.
HART), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. CUL-
VER), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
FORD), and the Senator from Pennsyl-
vania (Mr. SCHWEIKER) were added as
cosponsors of Senate Resolution 158, a
resolution to express the sense of the
Senate that the income tax rebates
should not- be subject to State income
tax.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 63
At the request of Mr. PERCY, the Sena-
tor from New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI)
was added as a cosponsor of Senate
Joint Resolution 63, to authorize the
President to designate the period from
June 8, 1975, through June 15, 1975, as
"National Wheelchair Athletes' Week."
SENATE RESOLUTION 172-ORIGI-
NAL RESOLUTION REPORTED RE-
LATING TO THE, PAYMENT OF
WITNESS FEES
(Place on the Calendar.)
Mr. CANNON, from the Committee on
Rules and Administration, reported the
following resolution:
S. RES. 172
Resolved, That witnesses summoned to ap-
pear before the Senate or any of Its com-
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130031-9
 9144 Approved For Rgl pl g 1 L Ci g7MQ1 ~~00800130031-9 June 2, 1975
mittees shall be entitled to a witness fee
rated at not to exceed $35 for each full day
spent in traveling to and from the place of
examination and for each full day in attend-
ance. A witness shall also be entitled to re-
imbursement of the actual and necessary
transportation expenses incurred by him in
traveling to and from the place of examina-
tion, in no case to exceed 35 cents a mile
for the distance actually traveled by him for
the purpose of appearing as a witness if such
distance is not more than six hundred miles
or 20 cents a mile if such distance is more
than six hundred miles.
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED FOR
PRINTING
AUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN CON-
STRUCTION AT MILITARY IN-
STALLATIONS--S. 1247
AMENDMENT NO. 490
(Ordered to be printed and to lie on
the table.)
TRANSFER OF SURPLUS ARMY LAND TO AUGUSTA
COLLEGE
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amend-
ment is identical to S. 3834, which I sub-
mitted on July 30, 1974. It authorizes
the transfer of a 5-acre parcel of land
from the Department of the Army to
Augusta College in Augusta, Ga. The dis-
tinguished senior Senator from Georgia,
Senator TALMADGE, joins me as a cospon-
sor of this amendment. Congressman
ROBERT STEPHENS, who represents Geor-
gia's 10th Congressional District, and
Congressman JACK BRINKLEY, who rep-
resents Georgia's Third Congressional
District, have introduced legislation in
the House of Representatives as H.R.
4018 to accomplish this transfer.
The purpose of this amendment is to
facilitate the transfer of the land which
is desired by both parties to the trans-
action. Provision is made in this meas-
ure for the payment of full market value.
There are no other competing claims to
the land, and no objections to the con-
veyance have been voiced from any
quarter. By authorizing the Secretary of
the Army to make the transfer directly
to the board of regents of the University
of Georgia for Augusta College, the bill
is merely intended to simplify, accelerate,
and assure completion of the transfer.
This amendment represents the com-
pletion of a process of negotiation and
cooperation which goes back nearly 4
years when the first request by the col-
lege for the Army site adjacent to the
school was made. In fact, the story be-
gins nearly 20 years ago.
At that time, in 1955, about 70 acres
of property occupied by the Augusta Ar-
mory was declared surplus by the Army
and acquired by the Richmond County
Board of Education. Excluded from that
transaction by the Army were approxi-
mately 5 acres at a corner of the tract.
On this land in 1957 the Army built the
present U.S. Reserve Armory, which has
since served as a reserve training cen-
a 1958 the board of education trans-
ferred the main body of the armory prop-
erty to the board of regents of the Uni-
versity of Georgia for use by Augusta
College. That same year Augusta Col-
lege, then a small junior college with a
history dating back to 1783, became a
unit of the State university system.
The college and its new site under' 'ent
a remarkable growth and development in
the succeeding 15 years. The college was
transformed from a junior college Into a
senior institution offering, first, a bac-
calaureate program and, subsequently,
graduate programs as well. Enrolls rent
grew from less than 450 students in 1958
to over 4,000 students in 1975, drawn
from throughout the Central Savannah
River area of Georgia and South Caro-
lina. The State of Georgia spent over $10
million to refurbish existing structures
and add new facilities, develdpin-!: it
campus which today has a replacen.:ent
value of over $30 million. In short, .o a
decade and a half, Augusta College has
grown nine fold into a truly important
community asset and a valuable State
facility serving a broad and expanding
area as an essential educational resource.
Anticipating that continued growth
could push enrollment beyond the 6,000
mark by 1980 and recognizing that p.-op-
erty for expansion was virtually nnl3ex-
istentin the college's land-locked resi-
dential area, Augusta College officials
first. turned to the Army for help with its
expansion in 1971. The college asked that
the adjacent 5 acre armory and training
center site be transferred to it to help
relieve the space problems.
The Army was sympathetic to the col-
lege request. In fact, it was finding the
5-acre site smaller than it needed for its
own expansion plans for the training
center, but It had no suitable alternate
site available. Thus began a cooperative
effort extending to the present to ind
a mutually acceptable solution to the
joint problem of relocation.
I do not intend to recount the efforts
that have been required over the last
4 years to find the happy answer. Su ice
it to say that it has been found through
the determined efforts of the college
under its able president, Dr. George
Christenberry; through the unstin ;ing
cooperation of the Army, locally and in
Washington; through the understanding
and support of local and State officials
and the assistance of Federal agencies;
and with a boost where needed from the
distinguished Senator from Georgia,
Senator TALMADGE, from our esteemed
colleague from South Carolina, Senator
TlIITRMOND, Congressman STEPHENS, Con-
gressman BRINKLEY, and my own (f tce.
The Army now has a fine site in Au-
gusta on which to relocate its' expanded
reserve training center. Augusta Col`ege
is moving ahead with plans to utilize the
present site, and the transfer has been
endorsed by all Interested parties. The
board of regents of the University Sys item
of Georgia has committed itself to ex-
pend funds to purchase the tract of land
from the Army whenever congressivinal
approval is obtained.
Hence, the next step required is ena ct-
ment of the authorizing legislation I am.
submitting today. I recommend pas??ge
of this amendment as consonant v.-ith
the best interests of the Departmen; of
Defense, the University System of Geor-
gia, Augusta College and Richm-ind
County, Ga., residents. I hope that the
legislative wheels will roll smooothly and
rapidly to passage so that we may soon
set the seal of Federal approval on this
fine example of cooperation, civilian and
military, local, State and Federal.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that this amendment be printed In
the RECORD,
There being no objection, the amend-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
AMENDMENT No. 499
At the end of the bill, insert the following:
TITLE IX
SEC. 901. The Secretary of the Army is au-
thorized and directed to convey to the Board
of Regents of the University System of Geor-
gia, subject to the provisions of this Act, all
of the right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to a parcel of land, with im-
provements thereon, lying and being situ-
ated in Richmond County, city of Augusta,
State of Georgia, more particularly described
as follows:
Beginning at a chiseled $ in concrete at
the intersection of the south line of Walton
Way with the west line of Katherine Street;
thence along the west line of Katherine
Street, south 02 degrees 27 minutes 55 sec-
onds west 288.29 feet to a point 1 foot south
of a cyclone fence; thence along a line 1foot
south of and parallel to a cyclone fence,
north 85degrees 31 minutes 15 seconds west
227.32 feet to a point 1 foot east of a cyclone
fence; thence along a line parallel to and 1
foot east of a cyclone fence, south 04 de-
grees 19 minutes 50 seconds west 233.05 feet
to a point; thence along a line 1 foot south
of and parallel to- a cyclone fence, north 85
degrees 19 minutes 27 seconds west 306.74
feet to a point 0.60 foot west of a cyclone
fence; thence along a line parallel to and
0.60 foot west of a cyclone fence, north 04
degrees 59 minutes 48 seconds east 520.23
feet to a concrete monument on the south
side. of Walton Way; thence along the south
side of Walton Way, south 85 degrees 30 min-
utes 15 seconds east 517,62 feet to the point
of beginning, and containing 5.09 acres, more
or less.
SEC. 2. The conveyance authorized by this
Act shall be made upon payment to the
United States of not less than the appraised
fair market value of the land and the im-
provements thereon, as determined by the
Secretary of the Army, or the sum of $662,000,
whichever is the greater, and upon such
terms, conditions, reservations, and restric-
tions as the Secretary of the Army shall
deem necessary to protect the interests of
the United States.
SEC. 3. The, money received by the United
States for the lands conveyed under this Act
shall be credited to a special account in the
Treasury and shall be available, without
fiscal year limitation, for the construction of
a United States Army Reserve Training Cen-
ter on lands owned by the United States at
the intersection of Jackson and Wrightsboro
Roads, Augusta, Georgia.
SEC. 4. The cost of any surveys necessary
as an incident to the conveyance authorized
by tbis Act shall be borne by the Board of
Regents of the University System of Georgia.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AU-
THORIZATION ACT-S. 920
AMENDMENTS NOS. 500 AND 501
(Ordered to be printed and lie on the
table.) -
Mr. PROXMIRE submitted two
amendments intended to be proposed by
him to the bill (S. 920) to authorize ap-
propriations during the fiscal year 1976,
and the period of July 1, 1976, through
September 30, 1976, for procurement of
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130031-9
 July 28, 1975 Appro lqQ;IfAg&Fil~NA?0 Q&Ep]A i7s7 90$4 MQ 130031-9 E 4199
of the offense and of the fine, whereupon he
can pay personally or by mail, or petition
the district court for judicial review. When
a driver commits an administrative offense,
and as a result causes an accident which
produces personal or property damage, the
administrative offense becomes a misde-
meancr, and the driver becomes liable to
criminal prosecution.
The results of this new method or, dealing
with traffic violations will be closely followed
to determine the desirability of extending it
to other criminal offenses of the traffic law.
Among the most important amendments
to the rules of criminal procedure are the fol-
lowing:
The need to corroborate an accomplice's
testimony was eliminated; the rule requir-
ing corroboration of the prosecutrix's testi-
mony in cases of rape was changed.
Puerto Rico's obsolete Penal Code of 1902
was repealed, and a new code was approved
recognizing the duel function of punishment
as a means of retribution, deterrence, and re-
habilitation and establishing new crimes in
accordance with modern times.
To expedite judicial proceedings the post
of Public Prosecuting Attorney for the Dis-
trict court legel was created and the "de novo
trial" was eliminated. Rules to govern police
line-up and photography proceedings were
adopted.
The commencement of a trial in the ab-
sence of a defendant validly summoned in
arraignment was authorized, permitting the
impanelling of the jury, the presentation of
evidence, and the return of the verdict with-
out the defendant's presence. To maintain
order when a defendant's conduct tends to
interrupt judicial proceedings, the Act also
authorizes: (a) contempt proceedings; (b)
adoption of any other pertinent coercive
measures; (c) defendant's removal from the
courtroom.
Pretrial conferences were established, to
aid in reducing controversies and in plan-
ning court calendars; To shorten voir dire
proceedings, jurors' preliminary examina-
tions will now be conducted by the judge. An
amendment was introduced permitting the
substitution of another judge for a disabled
judge in a criminal trial .in any phase prior
to the verdict. Criteria for the imposition of
bail and a swift procedure for the revision of
the amount of bail were enacted.
Various acts were approved relating to cor-
rectional reform. One act created an au-
tonomous agency to direct correctional poli-
cy and administer the correctional system.
In the civil area, amendments were intro-
duced to ex-parte proceedings relating to
declaration of heirship, amendments or addi-
tions to documents filed in the general regis-
try of vital statistics, and waiver of consan-
guinity for marriages, eliminating the need
of judicial hearings except on the court's ini-
tiative or upon motion by a party.
To reduce the cost of legal proceedings,
the attorney's contingent fee in tort cases
was limited. In addition, compensation to a
public official or employee for his judicial
appearance or testimony as regular or expert
witness, was, restricted.
The integrated reform of the Puerto Rican
system of justice as described in this article
shows that the three branches of government
can-without. overlapping their respective,
autonomous powers-successfully coordinate
public and private resources to revise the
system of law.
But reform is a continuous process. To
complement the vast legislation enacted, the
Justice Department and the Office of Court
Administration are sponsoring island-wide
seminars to explain the new acts to judges,
prosecutors, lawyers and other members of
the community. The Bar Association is con-
tributing to these activities.
The council's work continues. Recently
three more reports were filed by the commis-
sions on labor law, civil law and the office of
the public prosecutor. More reports are ex-
pected soon. The Supreme Court and the
Chief Justice, are enacting new administra-
tive rules and norms for the courts, and a
new judiciary act is being considered.
All those who are participating in the
process of revitalizing Puerto Rico's system
of law share a firm personal conviction that
Aristotle's conception of justice as the high-
est and most valuable human virtue is an
attainable goal when duly administered by
diligent, prudent, moral, patient and im-
partial judges.
Then only, will we be closer to Roscoe
Pound's prophetic vision " . of a future
when our courts will be swift and certain
agents of justice, whose decisions will be
acquiesced in and respected by all."
ROMANIA's OPPRESSED HUNGAR-
IAN MINORITY
OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, July 28, 1975
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to
indicate that, while I intend to vote. for
House Concurrent Resolution 252, I have
some strong reservations about it.
I was a cosponsor of House Concurrent
Resolution 326, which is not now before
us because of the promises of the As-
sistant Secretary of State for European
Affairs, Arthur A. Hartman, before the
International Relations Committee's
Subcommittee on Trade, which I hope
will be lived up to. .
It would be a mockery of our traditions
of freedom to strive for close relations
with Romania without making it clear
that we condemn the present treatment
meted out to ethnic and religious minor-
ities in that country, which compares un-
favorably even with that, of the other
countries of East Central Europe which
have Communist governments. Many de-
tailed cases of oppression and harrass-
ment were presented during the subcom-
mittee's hearings, showing the systematic
campaign being conducted against the
Along with this domestic oppression, Ro-
mania, as well as against Roman Catholic
and Protestant groups in the country.
Along with this domestic oppression, Ru-
mania has a dismal record in respect to
allowing the relatives of U.S. citizens to
emigrate to the United States.
Under these circumstances our votes
in favor of House Concurrent Resolution
252 should not be misconstrued as ap-
proval of Romanian policies and we re-
serve the right to raise the issue again
after the 18-month waiver period expires,
unless redress is given to the minorities
in Rumania.
Thirty-nine Members of the House, in-
cluding myself, petitioned the President
last Friday to make sure that the State
Department follows through on its prom-
ise and asked that he raise the issue in
his talks with President Ceaucescu dur-
ing his current European visit. We hope
that he will listen to our concerned voices
so that detente with Romania will not
4 Pound, Roscoe: The Causes of Popular
Dissatisfaction with the Administration of
Justice; 40 American L. Rev. 729 (1906), re-
printed, 46 J. Am. Jud. Soc. 65 (1962).
become tantamount to abandonment of
our humanitarian concern for the hu-
man and civil rights of people every-
where.
TITLE: SOLVING OUR ENERGY
PROBLEMS
HON. SHIRLEY N. PETTIS
OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, July 28, 1975
Mrs. PETTIS. Mr. Speaker, the time
has come for Congress to realize that
there is no easy way out of or around our
energy problems. We cannot just wave a
magical wand and make the oil crisis get
better or go away.
We hear much talk about the economic
impact of the President's program to de-
control "old oil" over a period of 30
months because it is "politically expedi-
ent" for some of us to continue deluding
our constituents into thinking that there
is a cheap, painless way out of this pre-
dicament. We must stop telling the
American people that energy can be
available inexpensively when we know
the contrary to be true. We must stop
the rhetoric and begin offering construc-
tive and comprehensive ways to solve our
energy problems instead of blindly pur-
suing courses which perpetuate them.
Mr. Speaker, I offer the following edi-
torial from the Christian Science Moni-
tor as one more piece of convincing evi-
dence, that the majority in Congress is
only deluding itself by pursuing the leg-
islative course which it has decided to
follow:
From the Christian Science Monitor,
July 23, 1976 ]
FORD'S HANDLE ON OIL
Democrats in Congress may be winning
points with the public in their battle with
President Ford over oil prices. But the Presi-
dent is moving in the- only logical direction
over the long run. Americans, even if reluc-
tantly, must accept the inevitability of
higher-cost energy and a change in their liv-
ing habits.
It was not easy for Mr. Ford to veto still
another Democratic bill, this one designed
to keep the controls on domestically pro-
duced "old" oil. The fact that the White
House gave little publicity to the veto action
suggests the political awkwardness of it. But,
given the world's depleting oil resources, the
President has no realistic alternative: He
must pursue a long-range program that
forces consumers to reduce the use of oil,
encourages the expansion of domestic pro-
duction, and gets the U.S. away from growing
dependence on foreign supplies.
The decontrol of "old" oil would not nee-
essarily give an impetus to new exploration
in the short run because the oil companies
are going full steam now. But it would en-
courage the use of secondary or tertiary re-
covery methods on old wells, adding perhaps
billions of barrels of oil to the domestic sup-
ply. Moreover, it would also simplify the
petroleum market, which now functions un-
der an unwieldy two-price structure, and it
would make alternative sources of energy, like
solar heat, more attractive costwise. .
The major concern of course is that a de-
regulation of prices on "old" oil, which ac-
counts for 60 percent of all domestic pro-
duction, will trigger sharp increases in fuel
costs, and add to inflationary dangers at the
very moment the economy is beginning to
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130031-9
 E 4200 Ap p rovC0FM1WM2fW R1GIA- 97i 4p0144RQp ,0130031 ~4c19V
turn around. Whether the impact would be
anywhere near as great as Democrats charge
is questioned by economists. But, in any
event, the intent of the administration Is to
phase out the controls gradually-and to
place a tax on the windfall profits of oil
companies that can be rebated to the con-
sumer to offset the economic impact.
There obviously will be a compromise be-
tween the White House and the Democratic
Congress. Without it, the controls on old
oil will expire August 31 and this would
produce an immediate andsudden jump in
oil prices. Both sides want to avoid this.
But amid the complex political maneuver-
ing now going on one thing stands out: The
nation does not yet have a solid, comprehen-
sive energy program that is understood and
supported by the American public. Recession
has put the energy question on the back
burner, the politicians in Congress don't
want to make tough decisions, and an abun-
dance of oil on the market defies all warn-
ings of crisis.
Somehow, there has to be better commu-
nication between government and public on
this crucial matter. According to the New
York Times, Mr. Ford plans to send to Con-
gress another program of oil price decontrol.
Perhaps this would be a good occasion for
him to go to the nation and explain the
ABCsof the energy dilemma. Americans have
never lacked an ability to adapt to new con-
ditions-but they need convincing that the
time for change is now.
THE DEATH OF REV. ALPHOS
A. SKONIECKI
HON. SILVIO 0. CONTE
OF MASSACHUSETTS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, July 28, 1975
Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, it was with
great sadness and deep regret that I
learned of the death of the Reverend
Alphos A. Skoniecki in Turners Falls,
Mass. Father Skoniecki was a great
friend, and both his friendship and
spiritual leadership will be sorely
missed.
A native of Zielun, Poland, Father
Skoniecki came to Canada at the out-
break of World War I. where he grad-
uated from the University of Montreal
in 1915. During World War I he was ac-
tive in recruiting Polish citizens in Amer-
ica. for the Polish Army, and was later
instrumental in raising funds for the
rebuilding of Poland after the.war.
From 1918-25, Father Skoniecki
served as the pastor of the Sacred Heart
Church in Easthampton, Mass., a posi-
tion to which he brought great dedica-
tion and understanding. He later served
as pastor of Our Lady of Czestochowa
Church in Turners Falls from 1925-48.
During this time he was always known
for his responsiveness to the needs of
his parishoners and the open arms and
heart with which he greeted those in
need. Father Skoniecki celebrated his
50th year of ordination in 1967 while
pastor of the Saints Peter and Paul
Church in Palmer, Mass.
In. addition to his inspirational work
as a man of the cloth, Father Skoniecki
was also a distinguished journalist. He
was the founder and editor of Plast, the
Polish language newspaper in Chicopee,
Mass., from 1918-25. He was also the
founder of the Chicopee Herald.
During World War II, Father Skri-
niecki was the executive secretary for
the Coordinating Committee of Seven
Eastern States working to point out the
dangers of communism to Members of
Congress. In recognition of his wartilae
efforts, Father Skoniecki was made a
lieutenant colonel in the Polish Army in
1954.
For his journalistic and charital-le
works for the liberation of Poland and
the Polish cause, Father Skoniecki rf -
ceived the Polish Army Cross of Merit,
the Silver Sword of General Haller, and
the Silver Cross of the Polish Rom..n
Catholic Union of America.
Father Skoniecki was a most talented
man, a, dedicated clergyman, _a great
patriot, and a distinguished journalist.
He will be greatly missed, although in
the hearts of those who had the great
fortune of knowing him he will never 'oe
forgotten.
THE LIE-DETECTOR AND THE
THREAT TO CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS
HON. EDWARD I. KOCH
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Monday, July 28, 1975
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Speaker, I would like
to draw to the attention of my colleagues
an excellent article which appeared in
the Washington Star concerning the
polygraph machine: the- problems it
seeks to solve and the problems that it
creates. The experiences of the auth^,r,
Jim McClellan, vividly depict the pr~.cs-
sures that the polygraph machine's use
in employment can put on our fragile
system of constitutional rights. His is
the story of a person so intimidated by
the polygraph that he felt compelled to
confess to having purloined a handful
of popcorn at his job. He was forced to
take not one but three lie-detector tests,
and when the third time he refused, he
was fired.
However well intentioned the poly-
graph examiner may be, as I believe the
one in this story is, the legitimate riglits
of such people as Jim McClellan are
jeopardized by the use of the lie detector.
My bill, -H.R. 2596, would ban the use
of polygraphs in employment. Business
can use fairer and more effective means
to combat employee theft. Certainly, we
cannot allow the rights of employees to
be undermined for the expediency of
employers.
I commend this article to my col-
leagues because it does present both sides
of the issue. It is our responsibility in
the Congress to come to grips with this
threat to constitutional rights. The
article follows:
[From the Washington Star, July 27, 19' 5J
MY LIE DETECTOR NIGHTMARE
(By Jim R. McClellan)
(Norf.-Jim McClellan worked in a
7-Eleven store in Arlington from mid-1i'73
to mid-1974. His account of his reaction to
company insistence that employes take po'y-
graph tests follows.
Glenn Meggard's firm administered the
tests to McClellan and other 7-Eleven era-
ployes. He disagreed with some of McClellan's
impressions of events during the testing, and
some of his remarks are reported here in
italic type, as are some remarks of Frank
Kitchen, Washington-Baltimore division
manager for 7-Eleven.)
The "lie detector" is about as democratic
way to apply for a job, or to remove one's
self from suspicion." So says Glenn Meggard,
president of Atlantic Security Agency Inc.
The `lie detector' is about as democratic
as the rack. That is my conclusion after
experiences with polygraph tests both in
applying for a job and in later trying to
remove myself from suspicion.
I applied for a job as a clerk in a 7-Eleven
store in 1973. After completing an applica-
tion and passing a physical and an aptitude
test, I was welcomed into what the parent
Southland Corporation calls the "Southland
Family."
I quickly came to see how my new cor-
porate parents treated their children. The
first thing I was made to do was take a trip
over to see Glenn Meggard and his staff of
veteran security agents for a polygraph test.
It was Meggard's assignment to question me
and to verify the truthfulness of statements
in my application.-In other words, 7-Eleven
wanted to know whether my character was
sterling enough for a $2-an-hour job.
Atlantic Security has three bland rooms
leading off its lobby which are equipped for
polygraph interrogations. I was led into one
and seated in an oversized, almost com-
fortable chair.
The theory of the polygraph is that when
a person gives a false response to a question
there will be noticeable signs of stress:
changes in blood pressure, breathing, pulse,
and skin resistance. Never trust a palm
sweater, you know.
The examiner told me It was Important
that I trust him and his machine and he was
going to ask me some questions to familiarize
me with the test and the equipment, and
to put me at ease.
With the machine turned off, I was asked
if I had stolen anything from a previous
employer, if I smoked marijuana or used
drugs, drank to excess, if I'd written bad
checks; and questions generally probing
whether I was truthful in filling out South-
land's application.
With some preliminaries over, a tube was
attached to my chest. A cuff which looked
like the kind physicians use to measure blood
pressure was inflated around my wrist. Some
electrodes were attached to the fingers of
one of my hands. I half expected a messenger
to come running with a pardon from the
governor, but it didn't happen.
The examiner told me to look at a spot
on the wall about five feet in front of me,
and warned that if my gaze strayed, or if
I coughed, took a deep breath or fidgeted,
the test results could be affected. Then the
machine was turned on and I was asked all
the questions again.
Fortunately, the machine vouched for my
integrity and I started work at 7-Eleven.
MEGGARD. It is standard polygraph practice
to thoroughly acquaint a subject with each
of the questions, and with the whole proce-
dure, before the examination begins. Then
the element of surprise or confusion-which
could distort the meaning of a subject's re-
sponses-is eliminated, Meggard says.
At the end of two months of faithful serv-
ice to 7-Eleven I was given an opportunity
to reaffirm my honesty. As a result of a $60
shortage, all the store's employes were re-
quired to pay another visit to Atlantic Se-
curity. I objected to taking another poly-
graph. I resented being mistrusted and I was
angry that I was being made to prove my
innocence even though there was nothing
to indicate I had done anything wrong.
This seemed contrary to one of those con-
stitutional rights I had always been told
were unalienable. But to refuse the exam
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800130031-9