BAN ON POLYGRAPHS INTRODUCED

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP00M00244R000500030005-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 3, 2011
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: April 13, 1976
• Content Type: REPORT

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/03: CIA-RDP00M00244R000500030005-8 3
^ UNCLASSIFIED Li ;;?ONLY U. CONI=IDEN(IAL U SECRET
.%OUTING AND RECORD SHE.
F
Legislative Counsel
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
Emma" R"u&r
-GS L
15 April 1976 STAT
OFFICER'S COMMENTS (Number each comment to show kom whom
INITIALS to whom. Draw a line aao.s column after wch comment.)
Attached for your..-information-
are pages from the 13V-'r2` ,
C1 '10
Ca: ressio afi .Record _
n g
remar-l izu osi
. Gavernmen. - - -
iny Uie,; ReQOr
sent? tai eexcutivetagenezes
in response to
'~ inquirte& from the ongresswcn an- IA
jrj;eorrge 1,.;t
L a , z~ t
gislative C'ounse
M* M
1 ~
FORM 610 USED,T,ONOUS ^ SECRET ^ CONFIDENTIAL ^ USE E ONLY
3-62 ^ UNCLASSIFIED
Z6 e
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/03: CIA-RDP00M00244R000500030005-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/03: CIA-RDP00M00244R000500030005-8
H 3346
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSJ; April 13, 1976
I commend this bill to my colleagues'
attention.
r
IIAN ON POLYGRAPHS
INTRODUCED
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House the gentle-i
woman from New York (Ms. Assoc) Is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker. the Govern-
ment Operations Committee recently re-
leased a report, entitled "The Use of
Polygraphs and Similar Devices by Fed-
eral Agencies," which recommended a
complete ban on the use of polygraph
and similar "lie detector" devices by the
Federal Government The hearings and
investigation upon which the report was
based were conducted by the Subcom-
mittee on Government Information and
Individual Rights, which I presently
chair. The subcommittee found that
there Is no hard evidence that poly-
graphs can distinguish deception from
truth Instead, it found that an Indi-
vidual's basic- constitutional rights and
sense of dignity and privacy are violated
by use of these machines.
Polygraphs are still extensively used
for a variety of purposes by private In-
dustry and by several agencies of Gov-
ernment. These agencies Include the
Postal Service, Customs Service, Federal
Reserve System, Drug Enforcement Ad-
ministration, FBI. CIA. and a number
of components of the Defense Depart-
ment. It has been estimated that-about
200,000 persons are tested yearly in pre-
employment and employment situations.
I wrote to the agencies that the re-
port determined are giving polygraph
tests and asked each to follow the re-
port's recommendation to discontinue
,
such use. The replies have been disap- true risks, the polygraph will often just
pointing. None of the agencies agreed screen out the sensitive person.
to observe the committee recommends- Mr. Speaker, I also submit for the
tion. The, CIA, for exam record copies of the letters I have re-
that t e v nt's,ei nd ceived from the Departments of Treasury
else of securily~~p~~oc~ess~ to and Defense, the CIA. the Postal service,
so for Agency employmen an - received no substantive reply or acknowl-
e new Dil er1~1 edgement from the Justice Department.
Te CPTi*Rl **+ e reply of the Defense Department to
Geor Bush, in a letter to me dated my request is typical. If I cut through
February 25 1976_ ts that "ell the Department's profusion of words cor-
ps through mid-1974. of qtly, it is also not changing its policy
fns a app7icaniAs~or em loyment rejected on the use of these machines.
on security grounds. over 60 percent were The report of the Government Opera-
as- " F. tions. Committee -addressed itself to use
of so-called lie detector devices by the
a er than limiting testing, it has Federal Government However, the use
e industry is
been reported that the CIA is resuming fa these machines
and the r in the r
er
use of polygraphs for periodic testing of in far terms civil liberties e. Often
its employees. The privately published s employees are not severe.
informed
newsletter, Privacy Journal, says in its oprospective the polygraph requirement o on the
on the
March 1978. Issue: of
The II result of leaks from Congres- application. They are simply told to ap-
rst
slonal committees Investigating Intelligence pear at an address to take a test The
practices was for the Central Intelligence findings of the polygraph tester are gen-
Agency to notify all employees of the resume- erally accepted unquestioningly by the
tion of periodic polygraph tests. The word employer, especially when low paid serv-
circulated around CIA headquarters was that ice employees are concerned. While the
the agency's examiners were previously oc- standards for polygraph examiners have
copied on Vietnam-related work. CIA says improved, in some States anyone who
an employee Is expected to get plugged in buys a polygraph machine can go into
every five years. although no objection 13 business.
raised If he refuses. Results are not shared
with the employee. CIA now uses a computer There is also the matter of the actual
to categorize stress measures on the various and potential invasions of privacy in-
Individual polygraph charts. volved-the probing for details of the
Mr. Speaker, virtually every expert Is
convinced that the polygraph is unrelia-
ble to distinguish truth from falsehood.
The Government Operations Committee
agrees with that conclusion. So does the
Department of Justice, which con-
sistently opposes the admission of poly-
graph evidence at trials. Yet the CIA
continues to reject applicants based on
polygraph evidence.
I submit this is grossly unfair to the
individuals so rejected who have to bear
the burden for the rest of their lives of
having been denied employment by CIA
for security reasons. It is also unfair to
use this machine to retest employees
when there is no reason to suspect them.
I also wonder whether an employee is not
open to suspicion if he or she refuses to
get "plugged In" every 5 years. It might
well be the case that the people rejected
by CIA or who refuse to be retested are
merely nervous of the machine and its
operators, and are not security risks.
After release of the report on poly-
firaphs, I received several heart-rending
letters from people who feel they were
abused by its use. I submit these letters
for the RzcoaD at the conclusion of my
remarks. I have omitted the names of the
people who wrote to me out of concern
for their protection, but my colleagues
are welcome to see these letters In the
committee office.
Reading these letters, I am reminded
of Richard Nixon's remark on a White
House tape:
.
I don't know anything about polygraphs.
and I don't know how accurate they are. but
-I know they'll scare the hell out of peopL-.
I might add that the machines are
totally ineffective In the case of patholo-
gical liars or those who are trained to
so that instead of screening out
deceive
subject's sex life. fantasies fears; the
search for union troublemakers and po-
litical activists. The polygraph results
are often stored and filed away whether
the subject is hired or not, and there are
cases of employers trading lists of peo-
ple who have failed polygraph exams.
These are only some of the reasons
which have led 13 States to limit or ban
the use of polygraphs for employment
purposes. Unfortunately. many of the
State laws are full of exemptions and ex-
ceptions. Congress has made several at-
tempts at banning polygraphs in employ-
ment situations,. one of the last being
Senator Ervin's bill., S. 1688, which passed
the Senate March 1974.1 .
But, Mr. Speaker, no bill has passe.+.
both Houses, and since persuasion, en-
treaty, and evidence do not seem to have
-. lssasrAss 1% Ig7e.
the paper ... the artists stating that you
are proposing to disban He detector tests on
the Federal. State, and Local leveb. I was in-
spired to write this letter. If there is any
information you can send me in regards
to this bill or proposal I would very much
appreciate it.
I am writing this to support you one-hun-
dred percent In this effort. Last year in Feb.
or March. I was discriminated by a polygraph
test *given by the police department. .. .
(I'm sure you have received many such letters
carrying examples of discrimination).... I
was In the process of completing my Master
of Science Degree In Counseling and had
applied to the police to be a police woman. .
I passed all the necessary IQ and per-
sonality tests and the last stop to be taken
before going before the police commission
board was to take the He detector tests ...
without going into any of the details there
were I believe 2 or 3 questions re: personal
lifestyle, and because I did answer these
truthfully I was axed trout this job pos-
sibilitIr
Now, I felt that not only were the ques-
tions themselves discriminating. but the
manner In which the test was given was too.
The person giving me the test stated that
"We don't hire liars, and the test is hooked
up to your nervous system" .. .
I am a member of N.W.G.P.A. and one of
my very good friends is a charter member
(there's very few of them) of the Z;ational
Gay Task Force ...
Anyway. I feel that because of this test?
I am now being forced to work in a secre-
tarial-bookkeeper position (Not at all in my
interests). I firmly believe that If a person
is not allowed to be or become all that he
or she is, (especially when the truth is told).
there is a flat case of discrimination. I have
never taken this issue further (suits or the
like) as I would be ruined In this town-
Thank you for the opportunity of being
able to vent my thoughts and emotions on
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/03: CIA-RDP00M00244R000500030005-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/03: CIA-RDP00M00244R000500030005-8
A prri l 13, 1976 L
this Issue, and I certainly hope that some-
thing positive will be done to prohibit the
use of these teats.
Very sincerely,
DEAR Ms. Aszvo. I was happy to see a small
two paragraph article in the February 5th
Daily News reporting that your subcommit-
tee recommended discontinued use of the
polygraph machine in government.
As a former employee of a small milk store
chain (Golden Gallon of Georgia and Ten-
nessee) I had to take these tests every three
months. Before taking my lost teat, I told
the tester I bad drank some soft drinks and
milk without paying.
I was asked to take the test anyway and
the tester . . . used abusive language and
everything else he could think of to intimi-
date me while attempting to make inc esti-
mate a larger and larger amount of beverages
consumed without paying.
Since then. I have read up on polygraph
machines and. along with my personal ex-
perience (and demonstrations I have since
seen), I am convinced of the farcicity the
"lie detector" can represent If only the tester
is willing to be unethical.. A Its detector,
I suggest, is the newest form of torturing
the wanted confessions out of citizens.
The polygraph means "guilty until proven
Innocent." I believe that most of the in-
dividuals (and I have talked to at least four)
who operate and administer these tests to
lower and middle-class Individuals do not
give a damn about the dignity or the rights
of the individual who is subjected to test-
ing. And, most Important, citizens are not
aware of their rights In dealing with the "lie
detector.-
I have a' B.A. degree In Psychology and
am just beginning graduate work. The more
I think about this problem the more It
touches me and I hope you will consider
making this more than just a governmental
issue. All people should have these Sams
rights-to deny abuse and ensure their rights
and freedom to the largest degree possible.
Sincerely,
FEz*IIART 3, 1976.
Representative BELL. S. ABZUG.
Chairman, Government Operations Subcom-
mittee, House of Representatives, Wash-
ington, D.C.
DEAR REPRSSSNTATIVI Aszuo: After reading
an article in February 2nd's Chicago Sun
Times about your committee and its dealings
on lie detectors, I felt compelled to write to
you.
This concerns my daughter and a close
friend of hers who were required to take peri-
odic lie detector tests as part of their agree-
ment upon employment at a McDonald's res-
taurant. The most recent test caused her
friend to cry, break out in tears and It emo-
tionally upset my daughter as well. The re-
sults, due to the nature of the questions and
manner in which they were asked, caused an
opinion of suspicion of untruth by the oper-
ator and both girls, although not fired, were
told they would be able to continue to work
there but would be watched. Thus both girls
quit rather than work under those condi-
tions.
They both feel the tests were unfair as
both are innocent of any wrongdoing and
are now out of jobs and since they both
finished high school in January, this makes
it rough for them.
I feel closer supervision of the employees
would be a better solution to McDonald' 11
problem plus a secure locker arrangement
for the' employees to safeguard their per-
sonal property as my daughter has had
things stolen from her purse while working.
in lieu of the Ile detector requirement.
I am it full agreement with your concept
.;RESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSA IT334T
to ban the use of lie detectors through legis- It is my opinion that polygraph devices
lative means except for their use in govern- should not be used to screen applicants or for
mental security and hope you continue your other personnel inquiries and, to the best of
efforts in this direction. my knowledge, they are not so used in the
Sincerely. Federal Reserve System. With respect to the
1 th
e
h t
t
l
LETrxR3 REC1tVED PROM AGLNC=
ASSISTANT SECRETARY or DPFE?rsL
Washington, D.C., February 11, 1976.
Eon. BELLA S. AsEUG,
Chairwoman. Government Information and
Individual Rights Subcommittee, Com-
mittee on Government Operations,
House of Representatives. Washington,
D.C.
DEAR Ms. CsAmwomAN. We have reviewed
the committee on Government Operations
Report titled. "The Use of Polygraphs and
Similar Devices by Federal Agencies," which
you forwarded to the Secretary of Defense on
January 29, 1976. While the report was most
informative` the Department of Defense is
unable to concur at this tame with the rec-
ommendations of the Committee majesty
Realizing the concern of the Committee
In the area of protection of the rights of U.S.
citizen& the Department of Defense has
adopted a comprehensive program on poly-
graph use to insure the protection of rights
of all mndlvMUSIS within the- Department of
Defense. The stringent conditions and limi-
tations governing polygraph Use are coo-
tuned in a recently published Directive
which is attached for your review. In effect,
the current Directive is culmination of the
efforts that have been made over the past
several years In attempting to upgrade the
polygraph program to a level that would
meet the high standards of your Committee.
In order that the Military Departments
might have the benefit of the views contained
In the Subcommittee Report. copies are being
furnished to the interested agencies. Addi-
tionally, this oMce is requesting a report of
polygraph operations within the Department
of Defense for the purpose of making an ob-,
jecti a assessment of its utility in the in-
vestigative process.
Upon completition of these reports. we
will advise you further and also address the
extent to which a proper balance ban been
achieved between the legitimate need of the
Department of Defense and the equally im-
portant need to respect the rights of our
military and civilian personnel.
Sincerely,
TmENCE E. McC:aar.
Assistant Secretary of Defense.
FsDSaal, RESmavz SYSTEM.
Washington, D.C., Starch 22, 1976.
Hon. BELLA S. Aszoa,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on_ Government
Information and Individual Rights. Com-
mittee on Government Operations, Ray-
es
s n
ygrap
administration of po
course of an investigation of a reported crime.
the use of such tests in aid of the investiga-
tive effort is a matter properly left to the in-
vestigative agency for determination. As in-
dicated, use of the polygraph test at the
suggestion and under the direction of an om-
cial Investigative authority has proven to the
Reserve Banks involved to be a useful ele-
ment in the investigative process.
In order that each of our Reserve Banks
may be informed of the positions reflected In.
the Committee Report as well as my views
thereon. I am forwarding copies of the
report and of this letter to the President
of each Federal Reserve Bank.
Sincerely yours.
ASTHUn P. Brans.
Tim PosrlIASrm fir..
Washington, D.C., April 6,1970.
Hon. Bads S. Aazvo,
Chairwoman, Saboontwtittee an Government.
Information and Individual Rights;
Committee on Government Operations,
House of Reprssee*atives, Washington,
D.C.
Dias MRS. Amos: This is In further reply
to your letter of January 29, 1975, request
Ing the Postal Inspection Service dlsoontinuo
the use of polygraph'esamiaations.
The polygraph examination is Used by the
Postal Inspection Service in some criminal.
investigations to narrow a list of suspects
after other investigative methods have
failed. The Inspection Servile does not new
the examination in Len of standard Ines-.
tigative procedures. but only as all aid or
adjunct to an investigation. Experience has
shown that the results of polygraph exam!...
nations identify the deceptive employee.
however, by far the greatest benefit derived
from the use of the polygraph is In clear'ng
those employees who have no knowledge of
a particular criminal violation.
Since the 1964 study by the Foreign Op
erations and Government Information Sub.
committee into the use of the polygraphs by
the Federal Government, the Inspection
Service has Improved and modernized its
polygraph program. Qualifications for poly-
graph exatt.3iners have been made more rigid
so that now all Inspection Service examiners
receive indepth training at a recognized
polygraph school and have college degree. as
well as a background in criminal investiga-
tions. In addition to the formal training at a
recognized polygraph school, all examiners
receive on-the-job training as well. A
quality-control system has been imple-
mented to insure that the results of each
examination are reviewed by a second ex-
aminer. -
D.C. Polygraph examinations are conducted ax-
DsAa MADAM CnAmwoatAN: I am pleased to elusively on a voluntary basis. No stigma
respond to. your letter of January 29. 1976 Is attached to r. Postal employee who de-
which concerns the use of polygraphs In the adverse action is not taken against any per-
ommendation Reserve System and contains the recec-
ommendation of the Committee on Govern- son for unwillingness to volunteer to take
meat Operations relating to the use of poly- the examination In fact, information con-
graphs by governmental agencies. cerning an employee's refusal to submit to
Records of the Board, as well as those of the examination is not recorded in any of
each Reserve Bank. have been reviewed for his personnel Ales.
the purpose of determining those instances It has been our experience that the poly.
in which either the Board or the Reserve graph examination has proven to be a valu-
Banks have conducted or participated in poly- able aid in certain Investigations. We, there-
graph examinations. The Board administered fore. propose to continue to utilize this
no polygraph tests during 1975. However. It supplementary investigative technique in
appears that polygraph test, were a iniv. selected situations.
tered to employees of tour Federal Reserve In view of the foregoing, no study of
Banks during 1975. All of these ca..es involved potential savings from the discontinued use
criminal larceny and It appears that In most of the polygraph examination has been
instances the tests were conducted at the made.
suggestion of. or with the concurrence of. Sincerely,
the Federal Bureau of Investtoatton. BENJAUnr P. BAmas.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/03: CIA-RDP00M00244R000500030005-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/03: CIA-RDP00M00244R000500030005-8
II 3348
_ DEPARTIUXNT OV THZ TarasvRY,
Washington, D.C., March 1, 1976.
Hon. BELLA S. A3zuG,
Chairwoman, Government Information and
Individual Rights Subcommittee, Com-
mittee on Government Operations, Howe
of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DrAs MADA3c CsAmwoaaAN: This responds -
to your letter of January 29, 1976, to the See-
r+etary transmitting a copy of a report by the
Committee on Government Operations which
recommends that the use of polygraphs and
similar devices be discontinued by all govern-
ment agencies. Your letter also requests that
we advise you of when the Tresusry Depart-
ment and Its components intend to discon-
tinue use of the polygraph.
After examining not only the recent House
Report (94-796) but also the June 1974 hear-
ings before your predecessor subcommittee
and the testimony and exhibits of the Treas-
ury Department. it is our judgment that the
Treasury Department should not discontinue
the limited use of polygraph devices by its
law enforcement units.
The polygraph is used sparingly by Trees-
ury-enforcement agenciesasone among many
investigative techniques. It I. not a general
exploratory mechanism but is used In those
few cases where other circumstances indi-
cate-it may have some-value to the investi-
gation.
We believe that our use of the polygraph as -
an investigative technique is proper and ben-
eficial We And nothing in the Report or the,
hearings on the polygraph to persuade the
Treasury Department to relinquish this use-
ful instrument in the repository of criminal'
Investigative techniques.
We will. of course, continue to oversee the
use of polygraphs and other Investigative
methods and to take such measures as are
needed to continue achieving effective en-
forcement of the law within our constitu-
tional framework.
With best regards,
Sincerely,
- DAVID R. MJ' CDONALD,
Assistant Secretary, Enforcement, Op-
erarwns and Tariff Affairs.
.GRESSIONAL RECORD - HOU. April - 13, 19.1-6
who had been disapproved on the basis of in- mendation as to the security suitability of
formation developed during polygraph inter- the person tested; and
views had already completed all other se- Evaluation of the polygraph. report is but
curity screening and been provisionally cep- one element in the total personnel security
proved on this basis. Without the polygraph screening program.
program, the disqualifying information on With respect to reliability, defined in ac-
these cases would have remained unknown. cordance with scientific convention as the
In addition, it is reasonable to-presume that consistency of the interpretations of the -
the program is a significant deterrent to polygraph charts. agreement studies were
application for employment by unsuitable. conducted as part-of an Agency research
candidates, and more importantly. penetra- program which was Initiated partially in re-
tion attempts by foreign intelligence serv- spouse-to .the hearings held by the. Foreign,
ices. Operations and Government Information -
The utility of CIA's polygraph program Is Subcommitee in the early. 1960's. Numerical
not solely a functibn of its part in contribut- 'results. of these studies are complex... and
ing information leading to the rejection of would require etxenaiva explanation,. but,
unsuitable candidates. The preponderance of comparisons may be . useful. Comparable
polygraph interview reports are favorable. studies -of similar, professional, groups are
Most of these favorable reports constitute scarce but two were found. Involving-cardio---
useful and comforting confirmation of other logista- evaluating E$G charts for cardiac. -
screening procedures: the remainder repre- pathology and psychologists evaluating
sent favorable resolutions of allegations or MMPI test results for psychopathology. Thu-
suspicions which otherwise could result in in- CIA polygraphers -chart , intespretatloi -
justices or in unnecessary defensive measures. were as good as or better: than these two-
The Central Intelligence Agency has con- groups. .
sistently urged continuance of its polygraph Finally. the selection of polygraph omcsr'A
program in its reports to congressional eons- As extremely discriminating 1.-to their qualt-'
mitteee on proposed legislation and hearings, ncations, intelligence, intsgrlty..= Arid .bigh'
concerning the polygraph. We nots in the
Dissenting Views of your report,. on page 56.
that on 25 Match 1975, based on the'bearings
held in 1974: that the Subcommittee?initialiy.
approved' a recommendation which would
have prohibited the use of the polygraph in
all but cases involving national security and
for law enforcement purposes provided fifth.
amendment rights under the--'Oonrtitution
were not violated This concern for national
security was reocgnlzed by formes Senator
Sam Ervin. a strong advocate of -individual.
rights, though he otherwise objected to the
use of the polygraph. In his proposed legisla-.
Lion to protect the personal privacy of gov-
ernment employees, Introduced during sev-
ing program wbioh.ls a continuing procee.
to keep them abreast of developments, to
oral Congresses prior to his retirement from
public ofge. Senator Ervin expressly excepted
the CIA and the National. Security Agency,
from the provision barring the use of the
polygraph in Government. Senator Ervin's
last bill was s.? 1688. Senate Report 93-724,
which passed the Senate 7 March 1974.
The CIA is cognizant of the danger of
abuse inherent in the use of any Instrument
used to aid in distinguishing truths from
untruths. Consequently, we have adopted
strict procedures to prevent abuses and to
protect those taking the examination. These
include:
Notification to each applicant for em-
ployment at the time be is given an applica-
tion form of the intent to use a polygraph
examination in the course of his employ-
ment processing;
Coordination with the Ofi:ce of Personnel
and the Ocoee of Medical Service. to deter-
mine if a polygraph interview is advisable:
Advance written consent of the appltcan=-
Notification of the privilege against
self-
incrimination on questions pertaining to
violations of criminal law;
Reviewing all questions with the applicant
before testing;
Limiting questions to those exclusively re-
lated to security issues;
Cr.NTIAL I--rrwjjasrtcz AcsNCY.
Washington, D.C., February 25.1976.
Hon. BELLS S. Aszvo,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Government
In/orma:ion and Individual Rights,
Committee on Government Operations,
House of Representatives, Washington,
D.C.
DEAL MGDAaXE CHArtwomAN This Is in re-
ply to your letter of 29 January 1976 submit-
ting a copy of the report of the Committee
on Government Operations, House Report
94-795, entitled "The j7se of Polygraph and
Similar Devices by Federal Agencies" and
requesting certain comments concerning the
Agency's continued use of the polygraph.
If legislation was enacted to prohibit the
use of the polygraph by all government agen-.
cies for all purposes as recommended on page
46 of the report, It would seriously impair
the Director of Central Intelligence from
complying with his statutory responsibility
under the National Security Act of 1947. I
refer to Section 102(d) (3) of the Act which
makes the Director responsible for the pro-
tection of intelligence sources and methods
from unauthorized disclosure. An effective
personnel security program Is vital to assure
the protection.
The polygraph is an integral and essential
part of security processing to determine the
security eIlg bi;ity of persons for Agency em-
ployment and for operational purposes. As
statistics illustrate, during the period 1983
through mid-1974, of those applicants for
employment rejected on security grounds.
over 60 percent were rejected on the basis of
Information developed principally or solely
during poly; aph interviews. In a sampling of
Informing the applicant that the examina-
tion may be monitored and possibly re-
corded to let him know there are no hid-
A bill to protect the Constitutional rights of
citizens of the United states and to pre-
vent unwarranted Invasion of their privacy
by prohibiting the use of the polygraph- -
type equipment for certain purposes -
Be it "enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United states of.
America in Congf"s assembled, That (a)'
chapter 13, of title 18. United States Code, is
amended by adding at the, end thereof the .
following new section: - -
"1246. 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 bp.
mechanical or electrical.means for the pur-
pose. of measuring or otherwise examine
the veracity or truthfulness of such Individ-
ual; and
` (2) 'employee organizations' Includes any
brotherhood, council. federation, organiza-
den procedures; tion, union, or professional. organization
Random monitoring by a specialised super- made up in whole or In part of employees
-
visor to insure that no improper questions and which has as one of Its purposes dealing,
are asked; with departments, agencies. commissions. In-
Maintenance of polygraph records In dependent agencies of the United States. or
separate Al" with very strict need-to-know with businesses and industries engaged in or
rules governing access: - affecting' Interstate commerce, concerning
Prohibition of release of polygraph- the conditions and terms of employment of
acquired Information outside the Agency such employees.
without my approval or that of the Deputy "(b) (1) Any officer or employee or person
Director and only if such a release Is neees- acting for or on behalf of the United States
nary in the interest of national security; who willfully-
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/03: CIA-RDP00M00244R000500030005-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/03: CIA-RDP00M00244R000500030005-8
April 13, 1976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--HOUSE H 3349
"(A) permits, -requires. or requests, or
attempts to require or request, any omcer
or employee of the United States, or any
Individual applying for employment as an
omcer or employee of the United States. to
take any polygraph test In connection with
his services or duties se an omosr 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 omeer 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 11,000.
"(2) Any person engaged In any business
or other activity in or affecting interstate
commerce, or any individual acting under the
authority of such person who willfully-
" permits, requires, or requests, or
attempts to require or request any indi-
vidual employed by such person or any
individual applying for employment In con-
nection with such business or. activity to
take any polygraph test in connection with
his services or duties or in oonnection with
his application for employment; or
"(B) who denies employment to any indi-
vidual, or discharges. disciplines, or denies
promotion to any Individual employed In
connection with such business or activity,
or threatens to commit such act by reason
Of his refusal or fanure to submit to such.
requirement or request, -
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and pun-.
Ished by a fine not exceeding $1,000.
..
"(c) (1) Whenever._
"(A) any omcer or employee or say per-
son acting for or an behalf of the United,
states, or
-(B) any person engaged In any busiaeas
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 omcer of the United States,
or any person applying for employment in
the executive branch of the United States
Government, or any Individual seeking to
establish civil service status or eligibility for
employment in the United States Govern-
ment, or any Individual applying for em-
ployment In connection with any business or
activity engaged In or affecting interstate
commerce, or any Individual employed by a
person engaged In such business or activity.
who Is affected or aggrieved by the violation
or threatened violation, may bring a civil
notion In his own behalf or in behalf of
himself and others similarly situated,
against the offending oMcer or employee or
person In the United States district court
for the district In which the violation occurs
or-is threatened, or for the district in which
the offending person Is found, or in the
United States District Court for the District
of Columbia, to prevent the threatened vio-
lation or to obtain redress against the con-
sequences of the violation.
" (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 injury
done or threatened. and without regard to
whether the aggrieved party shall have ex-
hausted any administrative remedies that
may be provided by law, and to issue such
restraining order. Interlocutory. Injunction.
permanent injunction, or mandatory injunc-
tion, or enter such other judgment or decree
as may be necessary or appropriate to prevent
the threatened violation, or to afford the
plaintiff and other similarly situated com-
plete 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 "This year we celebrate here.
person, or may Intervene in such action.". Next year In the land of Israel.
(b) The analysis of chapter 13 of such Now we are still bondsmen.
title Is amended by adding at the end Next year may all be free."
thereof the following new item:
Jewry. And let us Join the Jewish people
oppressed in any foreign land when they
sing the old refrain of Passover:
?
employment."
Sic. 2. The amendments made by this Act
tiul~ 'SECRETARY IN VIOLATION
OF INTENT OF LAW
shall become effective thirty days after the
date of enactment The SPEAK>LR pro tempore. Under a
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Hawaii (Mr. MASSVeaca) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
[Mr. MATSUNAGA addressed the
House. His remarks will appear boreafter
in the' Extensions of Remarks.]
PASSOVER IS A TIME TO REUMEMR
THE PERSECUTED JEWS OF THE
-SOVIET UNION
The Speaker pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Connecticut (Mr. Conan) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. COTTER. Mr. Speaker, millions
of Jews throughout the world will begin
Wednesday night to relive the events of
the Passover, the night when the Lord
liberated the people of Israel from
slavery. When they celebrate the ancient
liturgy of the Seder, the Jewish commu-
nity in this country will bear once again
a story of hope: the story of the Exodus.
Passover has always had a poignant
meaning during times of persecution and
suffering. When the Jewish people were
dispersed from the land of Israel by
Roman armies, they shared the bread of
of lotion and recalled God's promise of
freedom. When they languished In the
ghettos of Europe, they encouraged each
other with the words of the Book of
Exodus:
"God heard our moaning. and God re-
membered His Covenant with Abraham.
Isaac and Jacob.... -
And even In the extermination camps
of Hitler's Europe, where they were
marked for death, they somehow found
the. courage to sing the joyous songs of
Passover.
Mr. Speaker, Adolf Hitler belongs to
the past, but the persecution of the Jew-
ish people continues. Day after day we
hear new stories of oppression from the
Soviet Union, where Jews are denied the
right to preserve their identity and,
above all, where Jews are denied the
right to return to the land of Israel. The
Soviet persecution of these people vio-
lates the basic freedoms proclaimed in
the United Nations Charter and the Hel-
sinki accords, two documents which the
Soviet Union has signed.
Mr. Speaker, we must not watch in
silence while Soviet Jews are subjected
to harassment, humiliation, and impris-
onment. Let us not justify a tragedy with ?
the pious apology: "We knew, but there
was nothing we could do." Let us con-
tinue to work for the freedom of Soviet
previous order of the House, the gentle-
woman from New Jersey (Mfg Msnrrsa)
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MEYNER. Mr. Speaker, I am cer-
tain that everyone in this Chamber- Ix
well aware of the problems facing homer-
owners with outstanding mortgages as.
our current economic crisis continues-
Last -year, this Congress wisely passed
legislation designed to slid those wort
gagees threatened by foreclosure..- The.
Emergency Homeowner's Relief Act pro-''
vided for direct loans to be administered,
by the Department of Housing and Urban-'
Development in order to prevent wide-
spread foreclosures and distress sales of, homes, The act empowered the Secretaryt
of HUD to admbn:ater and Implement tbe4
emergency program at her dieerettoe.
W. Speaker, the Secretary has not re-
leased $1 of the $35 million that was ap- ..
propiiated for this program. And this.
funding expires In just a, few months on,
July 1, 1976. .
I believe that my record substantiates. -
the fact that I support fiscal austerity" '
and the decrease or omission of needless
spending programs. However, I feel that
it is the duty of the Federal Govern-
ment to provide reasonable and fiscally:
responsible services to its citizenry. Con-
sequently. I find the Secretary's declsioa.
to hold these funds in abeyance in di-
rect violation of the intent of the law:-
I speak of Secretary Hills' decision to.
withhold these funds until 1.2 percent
of all mortgages in the Nation -are -3
months or more in arrears. With appar-
ent disregard for the realistic problem
of regional unemployment and the vary-
ing socioeconomic levels throughout the
country. the Secretary is depriving thou-
sands of eligible Americans while she. '
awaits statistical legitimacy. Certainly
this amount to yet another example of
bureaucratic disregard for the very real
problems of our constituent&
Presently I am compiling statistics re-
garding mortgage delinquencies in the
13th Congressional District of New Jer-,
sey in an effort to present strong statistt-
cal evidence that clearly depicts the need. -
for a revision of HUD's financing for-
mula. Whether. the total mortgage port-
folio contains 1.2 percent of home'
mortgages 3 months or more In arrears,
the fact remains that there are several
hundred people in my district who could
benefit from Immediate regional imple-
mentation of this act. I will present my
findings to you when they are completed-
In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to-
ascertain the number and percent of de-
linquent mortgages In their districts and
to join me In my attempt to correct this
grave inequity.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/03: CIA-RDP00M00244R000500030005-8