Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 23, 2016
Document Release Date: 
January 17, 2013
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
March 3, 1988
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1.pdf2.34 MB
? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17 : WO . CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1SLIP 3/ WIT TO: (Name, office symbol, room number, Initials Date building, Agency/7st) 1. STAT 2. STAT c-ic() (DS remove,' 3. 4. ,P,P5 5. Action Approval As Requested For Correction Circulate For Your Information Comment Investigate f. /7707-4-- /7/444 Nceli and Return Per Conversation Prepare Reply See Me Signature Coordination Justify REMARKS c??//troetcP- S-rwqre 5-- /22 OV y ?-4 ti-/eY/ (Fs okt -E7 Leicyg cs6i lrfri 3-/F0 (./ DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals, clearances, and similar actions FROM: (Name, org. symbol, Agency/Post) MI% AA ? AM Room No.?Bldg. Phone No. _ _._.... _ Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved forRelease 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 FPFAR (41 CFR) 101-11.205 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17 : CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 March 3, 1988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE of the points in support of the INF Treaty that I have made in this speech. They also make one additional and specially impressive point. They call attention to the virtually unani- mous support of the INF Treaty by the European leaders in NATO. Here, Mr. President, are the countries that are literally on the firing line. If the NATO military alliance were weak- ened and NATO was unable to with- stand a pact attack these are the coun- tries that would suffer. Many of their people would lose their lives. All of them would lose their freedom. The leaders of these countries know the INF Treaty- makes NATO stronger. This is why, Mr. President, the Senate should promptly ratify it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the editorial to which I have just referred be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the edito- rial ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: THE TREATY, EUROPEANS AND THE JITTERS What does Europe think of the treaty to eliminate Euromissiles? The answer, as the Senate weighs ratification, is clear: Virtual- ly all West European leaders support the treaty. Some Americans say that behind the official blessings lie deep divisions and doubts. But they confuse genuine support for this treaty and equally genuine concern about the state of the alliance. Failure to ratify the treaty would only deepen those concerns. European leaders support the I.N.F. agreement because it would leave NATO stronger, not because somebody's twisting their arms. It would eliminate a class of weapons threatening to Europe in which the Russians hold a clear superority. It is the first arms accord dealing directly with European security. Not least, it holds the door open for further diplomatic opportuni- ties with Mikhail Gorbachev's Soviet Union. That's strongly desired by Europeans from far left to far right. Still, Americans who insist they know the real European mind ignite charge after charge. They contend that the treaty weak- ens deterrence. But why? More than 300,000 American troops remain in place. So do 90 percent of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe- 4,000 warheads on various delivery systems, including bombers that can reach Soviet ter- ritory. The critics see It all leading to a denu- clearized Europe, leaving Moscow with a threatening superiority in conventional forces. But European leaders are well aware that deterrence still requires nuclear weap- ons on their territories and they won't be suckered into that game by Moscow. The critics maintain that the treaty will make Europe safe for conventional war. How will eliminating Soviet advantages in missiles with ranges between 300 and 3,000 miles do that? They say it will neutralize Bonn. Did Bonn feel safer when Moscow had the edge in mid-range missiles? Reagan Administration policies have un- dermined European confidence in America. In its early years, the Administration unset- tled Europe with talk of the possibility of limited nuclear war. Then it undercut the doctrine of nuclear deterrence with talk of rendering nuclear weapons impotent with a space shield over the U.S., not Europe. Then in Reykjavik, President Reagan proposed eliminating all ballistic missiles, having breathed nary a word of that remarkable idea to his allies. Little wonder that many Europeans worry loudly about American thinking and the balance of strategic and conventional forces. The treaty may give a focus to this fretting. But it did not create the worries nor does it exacerbate the underlying problems. On the contrary, it strengthens the alliance mili- tarily and demonstrates its political strength. In the face of dire Soviet threats, Europe- ans went ahead with deployment of the U.S. Euromissiles, and through the alliance's steadiness, brought about the agreement to destroy all such missiles. The Senate will serve both the alliance and the ratification process best by doing what the treaty's critics fail to do: take the treaty on its merits?and the Europeans at their word. POLYGRAPH PROTECTION ACT Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, al- though I strongly support this bill, I am voting against cloture at this time because I strongly believe such a pro- cedure establishes an attitude of undue rush to judgment by the Senate. This bill was called for floor action 2 days ago on the afternoon of Tuesday, March 1. The bill was considered by the Senate for only a few hours that afternoon and a cloture motion was filed the same afternoon without any indication of a filibuster or extensive debate. Extended discussion is unnecessary to emphasize the importance of debate, appropriate consideration and the Senate's deliberative process. That does not occur when a cloture motion is filed virtually contemporaneously with a bill's reaching the Senate floor. Yesterday, on March 2, amendments were considered with a 10-minute time limitation so that each side had 5 min- utes for the presentation of argu- ments. That rush-atmosphere is hardly conducive to appropriate con- sideration. An amendment was considered yes- terday on their bill expressing the sense of the Senate to oppose a $400 million loan from the World Bank to Mexico to establish a steel industry. Debate on that important matter was limited to 15 minutes, slowing the pre- vailing attitude that the Senate should rush to judgment on such im- portant matters. That procedure, in my judgment, is most unwise and the Senate should take the time which it needs to give appropriate consider- ation to such issues. Accordingly, I believe that it is unwise to establish a practice for pre- mature resort to cloture. The Senate has ample time to consider these mat- ters. On Monday last, .6 hours of debate were set on a resolution which, most agreed, did not require that much time. In any event, the 6 hours were not used. There is ample time during the course of the workday for the Senate to be in session to give appropriate time to consider issues like the pend- ing bill and the World Bank loan. Ac- cordingly, while I strongly support the A.V6x-re 1793 pending substantive egis a ion, I am equally strongly opposed to this clo- ture practice and believe the Senate should reject it. ORDER OF PROCEDURE Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I simply take a moment to remind all offices that the rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture will begin at 9:30 a.m., some 5 minutes from now. That will be a 30-minute rollcall vote and the call for the regular order will be automatic at the conclusion of the 30 minutes. So if there are any offices that are listening and I am sure there are, I suggest that they make preparations for reminding all Senators that the vote is rapidly approaching. Mr. President, I yield the floor. CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask that morning business be closed. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- pore. Without objection, it is so or- dered. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the man- datory quorum was waived. So I will not suggest the absence of a quorum. Morning business has been closed. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- pore. The majority leader is correct. Mr. BYRD. Very well. Mr. President, I suggest what I intend to be a short quorum, and if no Senator objects to the calling off of this quorum, it will be a short quorum. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern. pore. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- pore. Without objection, it is so or- dered. OLYGRAPH PROTECTION ACT OF 1987 The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- pore. Under the previous order the hour of 9:30 o'clock a.m. having ar- rived the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. The legislative clerk read as follows: CLOTURE MOTION We, the undersigned Senators in accord- ance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate upon the committee substitute to the bill S. 1904, Polygraph Protection Act of _1987. Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Howard Metzenbaum, Brock Adams, Lowell Weicker, Patrick Leahy, John F. Kerry, Tom Harkin, Thomas Daschle, Orrin G. Hatch, Don Riegle, Christopher Dodd, Barbara A. Mi- kulski, Timothy E. Wirth, J.J. Exon, Dale Bumpers, and Robert Stafford. Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 S 179f1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE March 3,1988 VOTE The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- pore. By unanimous consent the quorum call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the committee substitute to S. 1904, the Polygraph Protection Act of 1987, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. CRANSTON. , I announce that the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GORE] and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BIDEN] is absent because of illness. Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. DOLE] is necessarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dixon). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote? The yeas and nays resulted?yeas 77, nays 19, as follows: [ltolleall Vote No. 42 Leg.] YEAS?T7 Adams Armstrong Baucus Bentsen Bingaman Bond Boren Boschwitz Bradley Breaux Bumpers Burdick Byrd Chafee Chiles Cohen Conrad Cranston D'Amato Danforth Daschle DeConcini Dixon Dodd Domenic' Durenberger Evans Exon Ford Fowler Glenn Graham Grassley Harkin Hatch Hatfield Heflin Heinz Hollings Humphrey Inouye Johnston Kassebaum Kasten Kennedy Kerry Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lugar Matsunaga Melcher Metzenbaum Mikulski Mitchell Moynihan Murkowski Nunn Packwood Pell Proxmire Pryor Reid Riegle Rockefeller Roth Rudman Sanford Sarbanes Sasser Shelby Simpson Stafford Stennis Weicker Wilson Wirth NAYS-19 Cochran McClure Garn McConnell Gramm Nickles Hecht Pressler Helms Quayle Karnes Specter McCain Stevens Biden Dole Symms Thurmond Trible Wallop Warner NOT VOTING-4 Gore Simon The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 77 and the nays are 19. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. POLYGRAPH PROTECTION ACT OF 1987 The Senate continued with the con- sideration of the bill S. 1904. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I ask a question of the distinguished acting Republican leader? Included in the order last evening was a provision to allow for up to three amendments to be called up from the other side of the aisle. What are the prospects, may I ask of the distinguished acting Repub- lican leader, on that matter? Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I would advise the majority leader that the Senator from Texas has indicated to me that he would not be presenting those amendments. He will withdraw those amendments. Perhaps the Sena- tor from Texas wishes to comment upon that. Mr. BYRD. I yield. Mr. GRAMM. If the distinguished majority leader would yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas. Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I had a discussion this morning with the dis- tinguished Senator from Massachu- setts, a discussion dealing with the area of the pharmaceutical industries. He gave me assurances that would be dealt with, and based on that, we are not offering additional amendments. Mr. BYRD. I thank all Senators. I ask unanimous consent that no fur- ther amendments now be in order, which would leave the debate time in position for Senators to speak on the matter. I believe it is 40 minutes equal- ly divided. Mr. SIMPSON. That is correct. Mr. BYRD. I thank the acting Re- publican leader, and I thank all Sena- tors, particularly the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gaamm] and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY]. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Utah wants to speak on this bill. We just had a vote. We will be glad to do whatever the leadership wants, as long as we wind up the consideration, have third read- ing, and have the vote after that. I imagine that will be in a short period of time. Mr. BYRD. Very well. Mr. President, shall we count on the full use of the 40 minutes? Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think it will be less. I plan to speak just briefly, 4 or 5 minutes. The Sena- tor from Utah wants to speak for 4 or 5 minutes. He is at the Judiciary Com- mittee now, and he wanted to be noti- fied. I do not believe anyone has contact- ed us on our side. I think most of those who wanted to speak have spoken. Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The acting Republican leader. Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let me suggest, if I may, 20 minutes are allo- cated on our side, the side in opposi- tion to the bill. Senator GRAMM has a conflict, and perhaps if he goes for- ward for 5 minutes and perhaps if Sen- ator KENNEDY would like to go for- ward, we can do it a bit hi reverse. We can have Senator QUAYLE speak in op- position, and then yield back. Mr. KENNEDY. Fine. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, for the time being, I believe the Senators would prefer to leave the 40 minutes in place, if it is needed. It may not be needed, and the respective offices on both sides should take that into con- sideration, that the vote on final pas- sage may occur earlier than anticipat- ed. The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 40 minutes of debate evenly di- vided on the bill. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would be glad to yield such time as the Senator from Texas desires. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas. Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I will be brief. We have debated this bill now for several days. I think Members at least have come to a conclusion as to where they stand on it. I for one think the issues are not as clear as I wish they were. No one believes that polygraphs are an infallible tool in ferreting out infor- mation. I think one thing that we have all come to understand is that the polygraph is a very dull tool. It is a procedure that has inherent problems, and I think, quite frankly, all of us are concerned about the intrusive nature of the polygraph examination in terms of putting people under stressful situa= tions and creating the potential that people are going to turn up negative tests when, in fact, they are telling the I think everyone in this great body is concerned about the impact on people Who test negative and who are affect- ed by it. I think also there is real and legitimate concern about how the tests are administered. But I feel this bill goes far beyond the response that is justified by these concerns. What a great paradox it is that we go on at great length about the prob- lems with the polygraph exam, and we take steps that deny the private sector the right to use it in prescreening and severely restrict its use, under any cir- cumstances, for the private sector, and yet we totally exempt the Federal Government, State governments, and local governments. It is as if what government does is so important, so critical to the future of the Republic, that we are forced in government to use dull, inefficient, in- trusive tools, but the private sector is so insignificant, so irrelevant to the future of America that the sector of the economy that pays the bills and pulls the wagon is excluded from the use of a tool which government clearly finds in some circumstances indispen- sable. I know the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts feels strongly about the use of polygraph. He has spoken with great effectiveness about the inherent problems with the test. I would like to remind my colleagues Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17 : CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 Mairli 3, 1,988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE that with all the problems we have with polygraph, polygraph is used by all of the intelligence agencies that work on behalf of our Nation. We found out one thing clearly from the Walker spy case, and that is, if the Soviet Union viewed polygraph in the same way that the GAO study viewed it, they clearly have not shown it in terms of their policy because they told Walker: "You are so important to us that we don't want you to put yourself in a position where you have got to take a polygraph examination." So do I think there are problems with private use of polygraph today in the Nation? Yes. But I think we are going too far, for all practical pur- poses, in excluding the use of poly- graph for prescreening and so severely limiting it in other uses as to render it virtually ineffective. I think there are many uses. Wheth- er we are talking about polygraph for people who are flying airplanes, driv- ing trucks and buses, driving trains, where drug tests have an inherent problem that if you are not using the drug at the time you are given the test it does not show up, I for one am loath to preclude the use of this test, imper- fect though it be. Forty States have responded to the problems discussed here. It LI not as if no other element of government has become concerned about this problem. I, for one, do not understand why sud- denly this is a Federal problem. I happen to believe that the State that I represent, the great State of Texas, is perfectly competent in setting stand- ards for the use of polygraph, whether it is being used to detect whether air- line pilots are using cocaine or wheth- er it is being used to determine where convenience store cash register opera- tors are stealing from the company and therefore stealing from the people who are buying milk, bread, and eggs from the store. I think the State of Texas is compe- tent to determine what kind of stand- ards ought to be used, in using poly- graph, to ask people who are going to work in day care centers whether or not they have ever been indicted or convicted for child molesting. Now, I know that there are always other ways of going back into all these records. I am not saying that a failed polygraph examine is in and of itself proof of anything other than a failed polygraph examine, but at least it allows you to then go back and look at the records more carefully. I think this bill goes too far. I think it unnec- essarily and unreasonably tramples on States rights and I urge my colleagues to vote no. Do I think this bill is going to pass? Yes, I do. Do I think, given the fact that the House has already cast a vote that would sustain a Presidential veto, that the President may look at the final product and decide that this is not the way to go and veto it, and therefore the vote would be on sus- taining that veto, I do not know whether that is going to happen or not, but I think it is a clear possibility. If we get a substantial vote here, I think that gives the President more leeway to look at this bill. I do not believe this is a wise bill. I do not think it is in the public interest. I do not think it balances the rights of people who do not want to take poly- graph examines with the rights of people who do not want someone using narcotics while they are flying planes or driving buses or driving trains. There ought to be some reasonable compromise. If the problem is with private sector testing and the proce- dures, perhaps we need some Federal guidelines. But to come in and simply outlaw prescreening, to so severely limit the use of polygraphs for the pri- vate sector when we in no way affect the ability of the public sector, it is as if we are not concerned about privacy and the rights of people. If those people happen to be working in wild flower research at the Department of Agriculture, suddenly we are not con- cerned about their rights and the problems with this test. If they happen to be working as security guards at a bank or if they happen to be working in child day care centers or they happen to be flying an aircraft, suddenly we are concerned that no one should have a right to ask them a question and have some ability to -de- termine whether they are answering that question honestly so that they might look behind that question. So I know there are those who are con- cerned about abuses, and so am I. But one abuse does not justify another. In my humble opinion this bill is not in the public interest. I urge my col- leagues to vote no. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I am not sure who controls time on this side. I think it was equally divided. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. GRAMM. I would like the dis- tinguished Senator from Indiana to control the time since I have to leave the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has yielded the floor. Who yields time? The Senator from Indiana controls the time in opposition. Who yields time? Mr. QUAYLE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana. Mr. QUAYLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The PRESIDING 01,710ER. The Senator from Indiana is advised there are 11 minutes and 8 seconds remain- ing on his side. The Senator from Indi- ana is recognized for such time as he may need. Mr. QUAYLE. I yield myself 8 min- utes. Mr. President, first, I congratulate the chairman of the committee, Sena- tor KENNEDY, on the legislation before us. He and Senator HATCH have fought S 1795 valiantly, and I think that they will in fact have an overwhelming vote. There was friendly but adversarial dis- cussion on this bill. My opposition goes to this bill on two fundamental points. One, I do not believe that the Federal Government should involve itself in something in which the State governments and State agencies are doing quite well. It has been pointed out that a number of States which in fact already have either a ban or requirements on poly- graphs are taking it very seriously. I think this is the beginning of getting into preemployment screening, and I do not know where it is going to end. Once we start with lie detectors, we will get on to perhaps drug testing, al- though the Senate went on record yes- terday saying it would not do that. But drug testing is not reliable in many cases either. We will get into all sorts of other preemployment things, perhaps like the preemployment psy- chological tests that some might say are harassing or intimidating. Once the Federal Government starts down this road, I do not know where it will end. As far as principle, I think that is a very fundamental point that I simply cannot overcome in trying to support this bill, even though I, like others, have a great lack of confidence in lie detector tests. I cannot help if employ- ers want to rely on information that is not valid. If they want to make dumb mistakes, I do not think it is the role of the Federal Government to clear up those mistakes. - Second, I do believe there is a tinge or perhaps a bit of hypocrisy in this bill. What we do is say it is OK to do in certain instances, particularly for the Federal Government, but it is not OK for the private sector. As a matter of fact, even if we would apply the standards of polygraphers for the Fed- eral Government, that still would not be OK for the private sector. Once again we are saying that Washington knows best. Unfortunately, I had the Washing- ton syndrome come home last night as I was unable to attend the game but Washington beat the very capable, skillful, dedicated Indiana Pacers at the Capital Centre, devastating them. Washington won out in that basket- ball game last night and now Washing- ton is going to win out once again today. I could not control or influence the outcome of that basketball game. I do believe, however, we have had some impact on what Washington is going to do now to my State and to the rest of the country on this particular vote. Mr. President, many Senators have come to me and asked how they should vote on this bill. And I am going to say now to Senators who have asked me that, if they have any desire whatsoever to vote for this bill, they ought to go ahead and vote for it. I have philosophical concerns about it, particularly the Federal preemption npriacRifipn in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 S 1796 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE March 3,T.1988 and the Federal Government getting involved in something I do not believe it should, and I do not know where that road leads us, but I say this is going to be construed more as a politi- cal vote. It is very important to some political constituencies. I know that organized labor has this very high on their agenda. To many of the so-called civil rights groups, I ? am sure this will be cast as perhaps a civil liberties vote. So I would say that Senators on this side of the aisle particularly that are inclined to give maybe the administra- tion the benefit of the doubt and want to go along in case, as the Senator from Texas said, there may be a veto, I would say there is almost no chance at all for a veto. I do not think it is going to happen. Therefore, I do not think Senators, who have some con- cern about this and are worried about maybe not changing their vote on it when the veto comes back?there is not going to be a veto. This adminis- tration will sign this bill. This administration a year ago op- posed this bill on the fundamental philosophical point that this was an unreasonable Federal intrusion and something that was clearly relegated to the States. This year they did not. This year they set up a statement of opposition on three minor concerns that they had. This administration on this bill is caving like a house of cards. They in fact will not veto this bill. And therefore why should, unless you are just really philosophically opposed to this, you go out on a limb on some- thing that is not politically popular, and vote in opposition to it? So I would say to those Senators who have still not made up their mind that as far as my advice to them, if you want to vote for this bill, you have any inkling that you want to be on record on the political right side of the issue, and you do not have the major philosophical objection as far as the Federal Government, go ahead and vote for it. Do not worry about a veto. A veto is not going to happen. This ad- ministration does not have the back- bone at this time to veto this bill. They will not do it. As a matter of fact, you could probably almost send anything down there under this bill, and it will get passed. They will sign it. They may say if you go too far in conference we might not sign it. Well, there will be lots of threats, a lot of joking. But I know this administration pretty well. I deal with them, dealt with them for a number of years. And on this issue from a year ago their po- sition has changed dramatically. They have folded up shop like a house of cards, and they will not veto this bill. I might just say, Mr. President, that this has been a debate on what I con- sider to be a very minor bill. I do not consider this a major piece of legisla- tion. I think it is a piece of legislation that did not warrant the Senate's at- tention. I do not think it warranted the 3 days we took on this bill. There could have been ways to delay this bill even further. We decided not to be- cause it just simply was not beyond the few that have the philosophical opposition. So there is no use to pro- long debate. The cloture has been invoked. We can see where the votes are. There were something like 122 amendments that were filed that could have been called up in a postcloture type of fili- buster. It could have gone on and on and on on a very minor piece of legis- lation. It could have been a very long and protracted debate but we decided there was no reason to be a Don Qui- xote on this, that there will be other issues that will come along that will be far more important legislation. But even on this matter, having 120- some amendments on the desk on postcloture, spending 3 days invoking cloture, also we now have an arrange- ment for not putting a sense-of-the- Senate resolution on the arresting of Senators on this bill. We now have 5 hours I believe dedicated to the issue after this bill. So it became much more entangled with much more debate than it indeed deserved. But I think that these issues are important. I am still, as I said, principally philo- sophically opposed. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 8 minutes have expired. Mr. QUAYLE. I yield myself an ad- ditional minute. Mr. President, I am still opposed to this bill. I think the role that we are on involving ourselves in is something that has been relegated to the States properly?they have done a good job? and is something that I cannot sup- port. I will vote in opposition to that because of the double standard I think it sets. It is a philosophical opposition that I have. But once again, those Senators that are inclined to vote for this or trying to think this issue through, if you have any inclination at all to vote for this bill, you might as well do it. It will be signed. You will not have to face a veto because the administration will simply sign this legislation in my judg- ment. I reserve the balance of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Indiana has 2 minutes and 32 seconds remain- ing. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to say why we are here today and why we are where we are today. After 3 days of debate and numerous amendments, we are on the verge of passing a signifi- cant change in Federal labor laws. Why? Because the bill before us, S. 1904, is a carefully crafted compromise designed to protect both individual rights and employer rights. - Mr. President, I believe my record in this body is second to none when it comes to defending the rights of the private sector. But I have been a will- ing participant in fighting for employ- ee rights as well. That is why I am proud to be the lead cosponsor of this legislation along with the sponsor, Senator KENNEDY. It protects both em- ployers and employees and does so in a manner that does not violate the other fundamental interests. The record is fairly clear on the limi- tation of the polygraph. But do not take my word for it. Do not take the committee word for it. Look at the sci- entific record. All the scientific data indicates that preemployment poly- graphs cannot?I reemphasize that word "cannot"?predict future per- formance. The machine was simply not designed to predict future per- formance. Given this fact and the fact that more than 2 million Americans are given polygraphs every year, we know that even under the best of circum- stances, with the best polygrapher doing the best test and perming the best analysis 300,000 honest Ameri- cans are branded as liars every year. That is pure and simply wrong. That is a stigma that they are going to wear like a scarlet letter every day of their remaining lives. Let us change the world "lies" to "careers." The evidence also indicates that a carefully crafted polygraph test given in conjuction with an investigation can be of assistance. This bill permits all employers to use the polygraph in such instances so long as the results of the exam are not the sole basis of the resulting employment action. In other words, the bill is a reasonable and re- sponsible attempt to focus use of the polygraph where it is likely to be the most accurate. Mr. President, if polygraph testing is so critical to screening of felons and drug abusers, if polygraph testing was the last defense against anarchy in the workplace as the opponents on the floor have argued, then one would imagine that States like New Jersey where the polygraph is already banned would be awash in criminality. The State's economy should be devas- tated on the brink of collapse but of course everybody knows that it is not. Over the last 3 years I have asked every employer organization that has met with me on this issue to pull to- gether data, hard evidence, that dem- onstrates how the polygraph ban has hurt these States. To this date, I have received absolutely no data because there is none. We have also heard about how effective the polygraph is in scaring _confessions out of appli- cants. I do not doubt for a minute that the polygraph is a very terrifying experi- ence. But really, is this body really ready to say that we feel it is so impor- tant for employers to be able to terrify a few applicants into confessions that we are willing to pay the price of branding 300,000 honest AmeriCans as Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 March 3, 1988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 1797 liars every single year? I think not. I am not willing to do that. Mr. President, I wonder how many of my colleagues would like to take a polygraph on a regular basis. I wonder how many of them would like to take a polygraph, period. I wonder why anybody would want to take one. There are some instances where per- haps we have to utilize them. This bill takes care of those instances. But I do not? think anybody wants to take them. I wonder how many of us would like to see our chances to represent our re- spective States hang upon a 15-minute special polygraph given by some ill- trained, unbonded examiner of, you know, someone else's choosing. Well, that is disturbing to me. I think it is disturbing to many other People. Of course, with that under- standing, let us just welcome every- body to the real world of the poly- graphing in the private sector. This bill is going to change that. Mr. President, employers are not without tools to screen applicants. But unfortunately some, I would say the best, tools really take some time: Checking resumes, references, person- al involvement in interviews, testing where appropriate, and knowing how to ask the applicant questions. These methods are still the key to hiring people. We all know that, because that is the way we hire our staffs here. Finally, Mr. President, some have argued that the banning of free em- ployment polygraph tests will destroy the private sector. As the ranking member of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, I can say with great confidence that this bill is not an economy destruction bill. I can guar- antee that a lot of them will come out of this committee in the future, in this year. You will be able to know when they come, because I will be right here arguing against them, and I will be ar- guing vociferously against them, but this is not one of those bills. S. 1904 is a carefully crafted compromise de- signed to protect employer rights and the rights of employees. I hope my colleagues will support this bill and give individuals throughout the Nation some needed added protection. Mr. President, I appreciate the ef- forts made by our staffs on this bill, and I appreciate the leadership of Sen- ator KENNEDY on this bill. He has been prepared and has done a terrific job, and he has explained many good rea- sons why this bill is important. I have enjoyed working with him and will enjoy working with him through the rest of this process. This bill deserves to be passed for the benefit of employers and employ- ees. It is the right thing to do. I am sick and tired of people using this instrument in an improper way, knowing that with 15-minute quickie polygraphs, virtually all of them are not accurate. I ask unanimous consent to ?have printed in the RECORD a letter from the National Federation of Independ- ent Business and a letter from the Na- tional Restaurant Association. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, - Washington, DC', March 1, 1988. Hon. ORRIN G. HATCH, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. DEAR ORRIN: On behalf of the more than 500,000 small business members of the Na- tional Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), I want to convey our support for your efforts to delete the mandatory post- ing requirements (Section 4) contained in S. 1904, the Polygraph Protection Act of 1987. If a roll call vote occurs on your amend- ment, it will be a Key Small Business Vote for NFIB in the 100th Congress. As our field representatives travel the country each day renewing memberships, we ask our members to respond to a survey of eight questions. The questions on the survey are changed each quarter. Though not taken from a statistically valid stratified? sample, the responses are certainly indica- tive of the pulse of small business at the time they are taken. On the issue of polygraph examinations, 94.7 percent of those surveyed do not ad- minister polygraph tests to prospective em- ployees. With regard to current employees, 93 percent do not administer polygraph exams. Government paperwork, whether state or federal, remains a burden to small business- men and women. The notification require- ment in S. 1904 serves no useful purpose in our view. It is patently absurd to require employers to post a notice for an action they cannot take. Therefore we support your efforts to relieve small business of this improper burden. Once again, Orrin, I thank you for your efforts on behalf of our nation's small em- ployers. Sincerely, JOHN J. MOTLEY Director, Federal Governmental Relations. NATIONAL RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION, -Washington, DC, February 26, 1988. Senator ORRIN G. HATCH, Washington, DC. DEAR SENATOR HATCH: It is my understand- ing that Senate floor action is expected on S. 1904, the Polygraph Protection Act of 1987, in the near future. As always, thank you for your efforts on behalf of the Na- tional Restaurant Association in crafting this legislation. S. 1904 addresses a primary concern of the business community?it preserves the ability of employers to utilize polygraphs in the event of theft or misconduct in the work- place. This bill is significantly less restric- tive than the House bill proposing an abso- lute ban on polygraph testing, which the as- sociation adamantly opposes. I urge your ardent protection of S. 1904 section 7(d) provisions that preserve inci- dent-specific polygraph testing. Only if these provisions are retained during floor consideration and in conference, can the as- sociation maintain its support of polygraph Many thanks for your continued interest in the foodservice industry. Sincerely, MARK GORMAN, Senior Director, Government Affairs. S. 1904?POLYGRAPH PROTECTION ACT (Kennedy (D) Massachusetts and 13 others) S. 1904 differs in various respects from its House counterpart, H.R. 1212. The Presi- dent's senior advisors have indicated that they would recommend that H.R. 1212 be vetoed. However, the Administration also strongly opposes S. 1904 unless amendments Including the following are made: Expand section 7(d) (which would permit Polygraph examinations to be administered In connection with ongoing investigations of business loss or injury) to allow the investi- gation of serious workplace problems that threaten not only material loss, but also the health, safety and well-being of other em- ployees; Revise section 8 to transfer from the De- partment of Labor to a more appropriate agency the responsibility for establishing standards governing certification of poly- graph examiners; and Delete provisions in section 6 which would authorize private civil actions by employees or job appliants against employers who vio- late the provisions of S. 1904. These provi- sions are unnecessary given the other en- forcement provisions contained in the bill. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I should like to make a statement on adminis- tration policy. While it is clear that the administra- tion still opposes S. 1904, they have not sent us a veto threat. I find this shift of position encourag- ing. I look forward to working with the administration during the confer- ence, and I hope we can report a bill that the President will be able to sign. Mr. President, I believe that the ad- ministration has been able to look and realize that there are some really good arguments for this particular legisla- tion. I think they also understand that this legislation is a carefully crafted compromise among all sides and that we have worked hard to pass this legis- lation. I hope that by the vote today, we send the message that this legislation deserves to become -law. I will do ev- erything I can through the remaining part of this process to see that it does. I compliment our committee and our staff members, and certainly Senator KENNEDY and others who have played an important role. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Massachusetts is advised that his side has 11 minutes and 41 seconds remaining. Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 8 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recog- nized for 8 minutes. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we come to the final moments of dis- cussion of this legislation, I want to take a moment of the Senate's time. First, I wish to express my apprecia- tion to the Senator from Utah [Mr. HATCH], who is the ranking minority member of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, the former chairman of this committee, with whom I have had the opportunity to work closely in the shaping and the npriacsified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17 : CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 S 1798 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE drafting of this legislation. It has been an ongoing and continuing challenge. Senator HATCH had introduced other legislation dealing with polygraphs in the last Congress. We were unable to get floor consideration of that legisla- tion, and we have gone back to the drafting board. We now come to the Senate and urge our colleagues to vote favorably on what we consider to be an extremely important piece of legis- lation that will provide a much greater degree of dignity to the American worker, fairness to the worker, and a greater sense of realism in terms of the use and abuse of polygraphs in the workplace. Mr. President, we do not take the Senate's time lightly. We believe that this legislation is important. Over the course of this past year, we have been able to work with a number of individ- uals, corporations, and trade associa- tions in the private sector in fashion- ing and shaping this legislation. I, for one, am very grateful for their help, their assistance, and their insights as well as for their cooperation and sup- port. We have worked with a number of the representatives of workers who have given enormously revealing testi- mony of what has happened to many of them and is happening to many of them in different job sites all across this country. It is indeed a chilling story that has been revealed to us, not only during the course of our hearings but also in private conversations. We are grateful to them for their help and support. In the past hours, we have received some information from the adminis- tration in connection with reservations they have expressed about this par- ticular approach. We have been very much aware of the division that had existed within the administration with respect to their official position. Some of the agencies within the Justice De- partment, who have commented upon the value of polygaphs in the past, had differing views from the position which has been taken by the Depart- ment of Labor. By and large, I feel that their in- volvement has been a constructive one; and we hope that before the ink is dry on this legislation, we might be able to persuade them, and to gain their support. I think their impact has been important and useful, but I think the legislation must come into law with or without their support. I would prefer that we have their support. Mr. President, as we come to a final conclusion on this matter, I want to remind our colleagues why this meas- ure is of importance. We have more than 2 million polygraphs given in this country every year, and that number has grown dramatically, almost expon- entially, all across our Nation. It is fair, I believe, in evaluating the effectiveness of the polygraph, in trying to tell the difference between truth and deception, for Members of Congress to speak on the issue. In many instances, it is a instrument which is abusing the rights of millions of workers and in many instances scar- ring those individuals in ways that they will remember for the rest of their lives, and that their families will remember for the rest of their lives. We have been extremely fortunate in having the Office of Technology As- sessment do a very thorough and com- prehensive review of all the studies that have been done on polygraph over a period of some 18 years, right up to the most modern ones. We have a number of experts in this area. One of the most significant and thoughtful is Professor Raskin, of the State of Utah. What we find are some undeniable truths: With the current number of polygraphs taking place in this coun- try, there are going to be up to 320,000 individuals, workers, who will be wrongfully labeled by the polygraph. Two-thirds of those individuals will be telling the truth but labeled deceptive. What that means in terms of those families, what that means in terms of the possibilities of future employment, what that means in terms of their future is one of the most heartrending stories that affect working men and women in this country. That problem is growing. Somehow or other even on the floor of the Senate, we have the false understand- ing or false impression that we are get- ting truth with the administration of the polygraph. The scientifie and medical informa- tion is that truth is only part of the story and a small part of the story. We have not ruled out all poly- graphs, Mr. President, and we have recognized that under certain circum- stances when you have a reasonable suspicion that individuals have been involved in a specific economic loss on injury, we permit under limited cir- cumstances the use of the polygraph. Under these circumstances, the possi- bility of gaining the truth is enhanced dramatically, and under these circum- stances the polygraph itself will not be used solely in making the ultimate judgment in terms of the employment possibilities for that individual, with- out additional supporting evidence. So, we believe that we have here rec- ommending to the Senate an equitable balance. The PRESIDING OFFICER. I must reluctantly advise the Senator the time has expired. Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 2 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 2 minutes. Mr. KENNEDY. With this balanced bill, that has been described in the past days, we believe that we are meet- ing our responsibilities both to the workers and to the private sector. Mr. President, in just making some concluding remarks, I want to remind our colleagues who are concerned about the Federal aspects of this legis- lation that this is an? intrusion in the March 3, 1988 States, that one of the great States righters of this body and one of the great libertarians of this body was a distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Senator Ervin. No one ever accused Senator Ervin of wanting to extend the long arm of the Federal Government, but those of us who had the opportunity to serve with him know of his deep devotion to the con- stitutional civil liberties of this coun- try, and it was Senator Ervin who said over a decade ago that the polygraph is "20th century witchcraft". He was right. So, Mr. President, ,we understand that the polygraphs do not stop lies; in too many instances they tell lies. It is important that we in this body are going to put the polygraph, which has been used as an instrument to in- timidate and to terrify so many work- ers in this country, on the scrap heap, so to speak, with other instruments which have been used in the same manner in the past. I again think that with this legisla- tion we are going to see the day when the average worker in this country is going to be able to walk into his or her workplace with the sense of dignity and self-respect. With this legislation, I think we are striking a blow for greater sense of de- cency not only for millions of workers but for Amerfican society. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. I withhold the remainder of the time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is advised he has 1 minute and 15 seconds re- maining. Who yields time to the Senator from Mississippi? Mr. QUAYLE. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Missis- sippi. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has 2 min- utes and 32 seconds. Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Indiana for yielding to me. He has pro- vided strong leadership in our commit- tee on this issue and I commend him for that. In looking at the proposal before us, one aspect jumps out at the Senate. Here again we are being asked to sub- stitute Federal regulations, Federal judgment on issues such as qualifica- tions for the performance of a job, li- censing in the States, for the judg- ment and wisdom of State legislators and State government officials, for no good reason. I say that, Mr. President, because in States such as mine?where for 20 years there has been a law on the books regulating the administration of polygraph examinations and the li- censing of polygraph examiners? State regulation has worked very well. While workers and prospective em- ployees are protected, those who have Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 March 3, 1988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE a legitimate interest in the use of poly- graphs as an investigative technique? the State government, city govern- ments, police departments, other in- vestigators?are permitted to use them because they have been shown to be useful tools in the investigative proc- ess. One witness before our committee testified that in States where there are no restrictions on the use of poly- graphs for prospective employees or those in the workplace, losses from in- ventory are 25 percent less than in States where polygraphs are banned, such as in Massachusetts and other States. The evidence is clear that passage of this legislation today will increase con- sumer costs in many areas and in- crease losses in certain businesses. Others who testified in opposition to the bill included the Jewelers of Amer- ica, American Retail Federation, and others who have had day-to-day prac- tical experience, in the workplace in selective use of the polygraph exami- nation. Obviously, the committee felt that the polygraph examination could be useful and was appropriate in some circumstances, since it exempted many areas of Government activity and many contractors who do business with the Federal Government. So, in the wisdom of the Federal Government, on the one hand, the polygraph is lawful and appropriate to be used and, on the other, it is not. I suggest, Mr. President, that we vote against this bill. Let us leave the regulation of the use of polygraphs to the States where it rightfully belongs. Mr. FOWLER. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield for a ques- tion? Mr. KENNEDY. I certainly will yield for a question from the Senator from Georgia. Mr. FOWLER. We need the contin- ued use of the polygraph for preem- ployment screening of those who handle controlled substances. The House passed by a very wide margin such an exemption to the Williams bill?by a vote of 313 to 105. Would the Senator from Massachusetts be willing to accept that language in the conference between the two bodies on this legislation? Mr. KENNEDY. Senator HATCH and I have discussed this, we have dis- cussed this with the other Senate con- ferees, discussed this with the spon- sors of the House amendment, and dis- cussed this with the principal sponsors and likely House conferees. We will be willing to agree to recede to the House conferees insistence on the amend- ment dealing with the employees who handle controlled substances. Mr. FOWLER. I thank the Senator froth Massachusetts, and will not offer my amendment. Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. Presi- dent, I rise today in support of S. 1904, the Polygraph Protection Act of 1987. This bill is designed to curb the abuses of widespread polygraph testing and to protect the rights of individuals who are subjected to the lie detector test. I applaud the efforts of my dis- tinguished colleagues from Massachu- setts and Utah, Mr. KENNEDY and MT. HATCH, in crafting a sensible, fair re- sponse to the growing misuse and abuse of polygraph examinations. Over the last decade, private em- ployer's use of polygraphs has in- creased dramatically. The American Polygraph Association estimates that approximately 98 percent of the over 2 million polygraphs given each year are administered by private employers. Only 2 percent of all tests are adminis- tered by the public sector. Mr. Presi- dent, I find this fact alarming. Over 2 million tests are being given each year; yet, there are no uniform standards for polygraph machines, there are no uniform licensing requirements for ex- aminers, and there are no uniform protections for individuals who take a polygraph examination. Up until now, the Federal Government has relied upon State legislatures to regulate the use of lie detector tests. However, I be- lieve that the time has come for Con- gress to establish national minimum standards for polygraph examinations. S. 1904 bans the use of lie detector testing for preemployment and random employee screening. Employ- ers have increasingly been using lie de- tectors to test job applicants and cur- rent employees to determine character traits such as honesty and trustworthi- ness. However, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that a polygraph test can accurately or reliably predict the honesty or dishonesty of an indi- vidual. The Polygraph test does accu- rately measure stress by plotting changes in three physiological re- sponses?blood pressure, respiration, and sweat gland activity?but it cannot pinpoint the cause of stress. And be- cause there is no physiological re- sponse unique to lying, stress caused by anger, fear or anxiety will produce the same physiological reaction as stress caused by deception. As a result, many honest individuals are being denied employment because they have failed a polygraph exam, while many dishonest individuals are being employed because they were able to outsmart a machine or an ex- aminer. Mr. President, polygraph ex- aminers simply cannot identify stress caused by deception, nor can they assess such obscure qualities as hones- ty or trustworthiness in a 15-minute interview. Even in criminal investiga- tions, where there is a scientific basis for using the polygraph, interviews of suspects regarding their involvement in a specific incident last at least 2 hours. S. 1904 does recognize the scientific basis for using the lie detector test in investigations of specific incidents. The bill allows employers to use the polygraph examination when investi- gating an economic loss; however, the employer must meet the following re- S 1799 quirements before requesting an ex- amination. First, the employer must have experienced an economic loss, such as theft, embezzlement, or indus- trial espionage. Second, the employer must have reason to believe that the employee had access to the property in question. Third, the employer must have reason to suspect that the em- ployee was involved in the incident. Fi- nally, the employer must file a police report: an insurance report; or an in- ternal statement describing the details of the situation. Once an employer has met these requirements, he or she may request an employee to take a poly- graph test as long as the test does not violate State or local law, or any col- lective bargaining agreement. Under the bill, an employee has the right to refuse to submit to the poly- graph examination. And, his or her employer is prohibited from taking any adverse employment action based solely upon that refusal. An employer may only discipline or dismiss an em- ployee when there is additional sup- porting evidence. If an employee does submit to a polygraph examination, S. 1904 pro- vides important protections. For exam- ple, an employee must be advised of his or her rights in writing prior to the examination, and the employee must be given an opportunity to review all questions which will be asked in the interview. S. 1904 also defines the types of questions an examiner may ask, and specifies that the employee may terminate the test at any time. Again, once the interview is complet- ed, an employer may not take discipli- nary action against an individual based solely upon the results of the polygraph examination. However, evi- dence used to support dismissal may include statements or confessions made during an examination. To protect the privacy rights of the tested employee, S. 1904 provides that the information disclosed during an examination may not be released to anyone other than the employee or employee's designee, the employer, government agencies authorized to conduct such tests, or any person au- thorized by a warrant to obtain such information. Because irrelevant, yet highly personal, details are often dis- closed in a polygraph examination, I believe that this provision is a particu- larly important safeguard against the misuse of information obtained in an interview. The final component of S. 1904 gov- erns the regulation of polygraph ma- chines and examiners. This legislation requires the Secretary of Labor to set minimum standards for polygraph ex- aminers relating to conduct, compe- tency, bonding, instrumentation, train- ing, and recordkeeping. I believe uni- form standards are necessary to ensure a minimum degree of accuracy in an already unreliable test, and to prevent employers from taking em- ployment action based on bad results flIsifid in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 March ?,1988 S 1800 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE obtained from a faulty instrument or an inexperienced examiner. Federal, State, and local govern- ments are all exempt from the provi- sions of S. 1904, as are Federal Gov- ernment contractors with national se- curity responsibilities. As former chairman of the Senate Select Com- mittee on Intelligence, I recognize the necessity of a "national security" ex- emption. The polygraph examination has limitations, but it does play a role in the effort to protect highly sensi- tive information. Mr. President, opponents of S. 1904 use the above exemptions to argue that polygraph testing should be good enough for use in the private sector if it is good enough for use in the public sector. I don't buy this statement, be- cause the Federal Government has in place very strict rules governing lie de- tector testing. For example, the Feder- al Government trains its own examin- ers, defines who can be tested, and prohibits the denial of employment based solely on the results of a poly- graph. In general, Federal Govern- ment uses the lie detector?test as only one component of an extensive back- ground investigation. Because S. 1904 sets minimum na- tional standards for use of the lie de- tector test, this bill will only affect States which have no polygraph regu- lations or have less strict laws. There- fore, in States where use of the lie de- tector test has been banned, such as my home of Minnesota, S. 1904 will have little effect. Mr. President, I would also like to express my support for the amend- ment offered by my distinguished col- league from Ohio, Mr. METZENBAIIM, on an issue unrelated to polygraph testing. My colleague's amendment, which I am pleased to cosponsor, ex- presses this body's opposition to the proposed $400 million World Bank loan to the Mexican steel industry. The World Bank has proposed to lend Mexico $400 million to restructure and ? modernize an inefficient steel indus- try. However, I - cannot understand how this loan will assist economic de- velopment when there is already an excess capacity of world steel produc- tion. Mexico will be unable to repay its World Bank loan and unable to repay its loans to American banks if it cannot sell steel. And although I agree that it is in the best interest of the United States to promote growth in the Mexican economy. I do not believe that a $400 million loan to the Mexi- can steel industry will provide steady jobs and stable growth. This loan will only put Mexico deeper into debt and will further harm an ailing United States steel industry. I urge my col- leagues to send a strong message to the World Bank that it should reject the proposed loan to Mexico. Mr. President, I support S. 1904 be- cause I believe that American workers need protection from the widespread abuse and misuse of the lie detector test. The bill crafted by my colleagues from Massachusetts and Utah is a sen- sible and balanced response to a grow- ing problem, and it has broad support in both the public and private sectors. I am pleased that S. 1904 is being con- sidered by this body. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Polygraph Protection Act of 1987. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I sup- port S. 1904, the Polygraph Protection Act of 1987. I believe that this legisla- tion represents an appropriate balance of the interests of employees and em- ployers, and is a reasonable and fair solution to the problems inherent in widespread polygraph testing. This bill has bipartisan support, and also has support from labor, business, and civil liberties organizations. As a member of the Labor Committee in the 99th Con- gress, I cosponsored similar legislation. I commend Senator KENNEDY for bringing this bill before the Senate. I oppose the use of polygraphs in preemployment screening, which this bill would prohibit. This bill does not prohibit the use of polygraphs in post- employment investigations of econom- ic loss, with appropriate safeguards. This is a reasonable and balanced ap- proach. The bill contains appropriate exemptions where they are needed, and I oppose the attempts of some to carve out additional industry exemp- tions. This legislation does not need amendments to cater to specific spe- cial interests, beyond the carefully crafted amendments included in the bill as amended by the Senate. S. 1904 already has the support of a number of organizations which op- posed other polygraph bills, including the American Association of Rail- roads, the American Bankers Associa- tion, the National Association of Con- venience Stores, the National Grocers' Association, the National Mass Retail- ers Institute, the National Restaurant Association, the National Retail Mer- chants Association, and the Securities Industry Association. The use of polygraphs has tripled over the past 10 years. As industry re- liance on this device grows, Congress has an obligation to decide whether the use of this tool constitutes an in- fringement of the rights of employees and prospective employees. I believe that polygraph use in preemployment screening, because of questions about its reliability as well as the possibility of abuse, constitutes such an infringe- ment. The polygraph instrument, some- times called a lie detector, cannot ac- tually detect lies. It is wholly depend- ent on a subjective reading by a pdly- grapher. A 1983 OTA study by Dr. Leonard Saxe of Boston University concluded that lies were detected be- tween 50.6 percent to 98.6 percent of the time, and that true statements were correctly classified between 12.5 percent and 94.1 percent of the time. That represents not much better than a toss of the coin in many instances. These statistics refute the use of the polygraph as a means of judging the veracity of a subject. As a prosecutor in Massachusetts, I found the polygraph to be sometimes a useful tool in criminal investigations. I am pleased, therefore, that this legis- lation contains an exemption for Fed- eral, State, and local governments as well as for contractors doing sensitive defense work. I also believe that an ex- emption for private employers in the areas of armored-car personnel, securi- ty alarm systems, and other security personnel is warranted as a law en- forcement tool, in conjunction with other law enforcement measures. But of the estimated 2 million people a year who are administered polygraph tests, 98 percent of them are given by private business, with 75 percent of those tests being given for preemployment screening. The OTA study concluded that "the available research evidence does not establish the scientific validity of the polygraph test for personnel screen- ing." Yet the increasing amount of preemployment testing means an in- creasing number of our citizens who are dependent on the results of this often unreliable machine. American courts cannot compel defendants to take these tests, and employers should not be able to mandate the test as a condition of employment. I also have other concerns about the use of the polygraph as a tool of in- timidation. A Florida polygrapher noted that the polygraph was "the best confession-getter since the cattle prod." Many polygraphers say that the bulk of their confessions take place just prior to the actual examina- tion when the subject is told about the high accuracy of the machine. They believe that the specter of an infallible lie detector causes people to confess rather than be caught by the machine. This technique is unfair to prospective employees, who are not guilty of any crime, and is more reminiscent of the methods of a totalitarian country than of the United States of America. For this reason I have opposed ef- forts to add an exemption to this bill for voluntary polygraph examinations. I have serious questions about how voluntary these tests would actually be in many instances, given the bal- ance of power between employer and employee and the inherent potential for coercion in a so-called voluntary test. I have also opposed other efforts to open up loopholes in this bill by granting exemptions for specific indus- tries. Given the unreliability of poly- graph testing, particularly the 15 minute quickie tests given in many commercial and industry situations, these tests are unwarranted, unneces sary and unfair. The State of Massachusetts long ago banned the use of the polygraph for employment purposes. In 1959, we became the first State in the country to bar its use in employment. As is well known, the economy of Massa- Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 Mai:ch 3, 1988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE chusetts has thrived without the use of this device in industry. Merchants and industries in Massachusetts have not suffered the huge losses that some have alleged would take place with a polygraph ban. I am told that some national companies which operate in States like Massachusetts, or the 20 other States that ban or restrict poly- graph use, do test prospective employ- ees out of State on a regular basis. This bill would end this wholesale cir- cumvention of our State laws. This is an important and timely piece of legislation. Last year, we cele- brated the 200th anniversary Of our Constitution. This year, let us remem- ber that the Constitution is a living document, and let us protect the con- stitutional rights of American workers. I am pleased to join with my col-' leagues in supporting the passage of S. 1904. Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to pass, as amended, the Polygraph Protection Act of 1987. As reported by the Labor and Human Resources Committee the bill strikes a delicate balance between protecting the rights of employees and ensuring that employers have appro- priate means to protect their business- es in cases of specific illegal incidents. Mr. President, the polygraph test is administered over 2 million times each year. In the private sector, most poly- graph tests are administered for preemployment screening purposes of random tests of employees. The test measures changes in blood pressure, respiration patterns, and perspiration. The test does not measure deception. Changes in these physiological condi- tions may also indicate fear, anxiety, embarrassment, or resentment rather than deception. Mr. President, the testimony pre- sented to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, of which I am a member, indicates that the broad, pro- spective questions which are common to preemployment and random poly- graph examinations are often Inaccu- rate. The inaccuracy of polygraph ex- aminations does not vary by industry. Although we may be particularly sym- pathetic to the concerns of some in- dustries in their effort to protect themselves from unscrupulous poten- tial employees, there is no evidence which leads us to believe that the use of polygraphs is any more effective for preemployment and random screening in these particular industries. I urge my colleagues, therefore, to avoid di- luting the protections offered in this measure by adopting industry-wide ex- emptions to the bill. The committee did find that a poly- graph test used to investigate specific illegal incidents under strictly regulat- ed conditions can be effective, though it is far from infallible. The bill, there- fore, allows the use of a polygraph test in the course of an ongoing investiga- tion if an employee had access to the property that is the subject of the in- vestigation and the employer has a reasonable suspicion that the employ- ee was involved in the incident. How- ever, adverse action may not be taken against an employee based solely upon the results of a polygraph test; addi- tional supporting evidence must be presented to justify such action. Fur- thermore, the bill requires that em- ployees may refuse to take the exami- nation without fear of recrimination. In addition, the bill established specif- ic conditions under which the test may be administered and establishes mini- mum qualifications for polygraph ex- aminers. Finally, Mr. President, though many would like to leave the resolution of this issue to the States, it is clear that State regulation has not been and will not be effective. State policy on poly- graph use varies widely. In fact, nine States have no laws governing the use of polygraphs. Without interstate uni- formity, employers and examiners have been able to circumvent the in- tention of State laws, and individuals are often uncertain about the rights they may have with respect to poly- graphs. It is clearly time. that a uni- form national policy be adopted. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate_ the two principal sponsors of this leg- islation, the senior Senator from Mas- sachusetts, Mr. KENNEDY and the senior Senator from Utah, Mr. HATCH, I am pleased to be an original cospon- sor of this bipartisan measure to pro- tect employees and job applicants from unjust employment actions. I strongly urge my colleagues to support S. 1904. Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to address the subject before us, namely, the use of poly- graphs in the workplace. The employment relationship is one which we, in our free market economy, value highly. Businesses, large and small, depend upon their workers to make goods and deliver services. Like- wise, individuals look to employers to provide an opportunity to earn a living. A cooperative and trusting rela- tionship between employees and em- ployers generally creates the best envi- ronment for good profits, as well as good wages. In regulating the workplace, Con- gress should strive to foster coopera- tion between workers and business owners. The current proposal before the Senate on polygraphs, does not, however, advance that spirit of coop- eration. Rather, the legislation is a piecemeal approach to supposed-em- ployer abuse of polygraphs. First, the bill exempts government employers, from State ?and local to Federal offices. If the polygraph is so untrustworthy, why are we allowing Government officials to continue to use it? It seems to me that we in the Government, especially we in the Con- gress, must begin to live by the legisla- tion we impose on private industry. Second, the bill attempts to create a narrow situation in which an employer may require an employee to take a S 1801 polygraph. But, the exception may swallow the rule. As long as an em- ployer has a "reasonable suspicion" that an employee was involved in an incident where the employer suffered a loss or injury, the employer can order a polygraph. The only thing the employer must do is file a report, and that report can, at a minimum, be filed in the employee's personnel file. As a result of this exception, a host of new litigation will arise. The courts will pass upon whether the employer was justified in ordering the poly- graph?whether the employer had "reasonable suspicion." And, the courts will decide whether the employ- er filed an appropriate report about the incident leading up to the poly- graph. Finally, the bill creates a blanket prohibition on the use of polygraphs as a preemployment screening device. Before there is any employment rela- tionship between the applicant and the employer, we are telling the em- ployer that he may not use the poly- graph as a final check on the appli- cant, to confirm or corroborate the judgment about the applicant. The vast majority of employers in this country do not use the poly- graph?it is costly and its value is lim- ited. But there are industries which may find the polygraph to be worth- while?those involved in child care, se- curity services, financial services- or narcotics, just to mention a few. The complete ban may unnecessarily limit these employers. Clearly, the polygraph cannot be a substitute for good management and supervision. And Americans must be protected from unwarranted invasions by employers and those who adminis- ter the polygraph. The use of poly- graphs may have gotten out of hand in the last few years, and while the problem needs to be addressed, I do not believe that this bill is our best step forward. I will vote against S. 1904. Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor and a strong supporter of the Polygraph Protection Act of 1987. I want to con- gratulate my chairman, Senator KEN- NEDY, for leading -this effort to correct an unjust situation facing America's workers. He is a tireless champion for the working men and women of this country and the polygraph bill is an- other fine example of his commitment in this area. I also want to congratu- late Senator HATCH for his leadership on this bill. It is settled that polygraph tests are not accurate "lie detectors." The American Medical Association, testify- ing before the Labor Committee, stated that polygraph tests "measure nervousness and excitability, not truth." Honest workers and job appli- cants may well be nervous when strapped to a machine and asked a series of intimidating or personal ques- tions. We cannot have careers and rep- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 S 1802 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE March 3, 1988 utations depending on the results of such a frightening, unscientific test. But currently there is no Federal pro- tection for millions of workers subject- ed to these tests by private employers. The Kennedy-Hatch bill corrects this critical problem. The Polygraph Protection Act strikes a careful balance. It bans poly- graph use in the two areas where the results are most suspect: preemploy- ment screening and random testing. This will eliminate the most abusive uses of the polygraph in the private sector. The bill allows polygraph use where the employer has reasonable suspicion that a particular employee was involved in an internal theft. Under such limited circumstances, polygraph tests can serve as one tool to help reduce the serious problem of internal theft. This bill has a broad range of sup- port from labor, civil liberties groups and a number of business associations. I again commend Senators KENNEDY and HATCH. I enthusiastically support the Polygraph Protection Act of 1987 and I urge all my colleagues to support it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, lam prepared to yield back the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts yield back the remainder of his time. All time has expired or been yielded back. The question is on adoption of the committee substitute as amended. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk pro- ceeded to call the roll. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the roll- call vote is imminent and the order was entered last evening making the call for the regular order automatic at the conclusion of 15 minutes. There- fore, I would suggest that Senators be on their way to the floor now as soon as possible. Mr. President, I take a minute just to compliment and thank the two managers of the bill, Senator KENNEDY and Senator HATCH. They have demon- strated good teamwork on this bill, good cooperation and skill in manag- ing the bill, handling it in committee and in bringing it to final conclusion shortly. They are to be commended. I especially, though, commend Mr. KENNEDY. He has been in considerable physical pain during this debate, yet has not asked for any special consider- ation. He did not ask to end the debate last night. He, as a matter of fact, was wanting to press on all the time. And so I admire him for that extra effort that he has put forth over and above the common effort that is ordinarily needed in his position as manager of the bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader and my colleague for his remarks. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 30 seconds. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to also thank the majority leader. We know that there is a very full calendar and there is a great deal of business for this body, and we know that there were several who had some concerns with the legislation. It is always a challenge to the leadership to try to work these matters out. I am grateful to the leader. I know I speak for all the members of our committee and, hopefully, for those who will vote in support and even those who might express some opposition. I thank the leader very much, as well as the Senator from Utah. - The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the commit- tee substitute, as amended. The committee substitute, as amend- ed, was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consider- ation of H.R. 1212, Calendar Order No. 431, the House companion bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (H.R. 1212) to prevent the denial of employment opportunities by prohibiting the use of lie detectors by employers in- volved in or affecting interstate commerce. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1904, as amended, be substi- tuted for the House language. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote or- dered on final passage of the Senate bill be transferred to final passage of H.R. 1212.' The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the amendment and third reading of the bill. The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. The bill was read the third time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GORE] and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. SimoN] are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BIDEN] is absent because of illness. Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. DOLE] is necessarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BREAUX). Are there any other Sena- tors in the Chamber desiring to vote? The result was announced?yeas 69, nays 27, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 43 Leg.] Adams Baucus Bentsen Bingaman Boren Boschwitz Bradley Breaux Bumpers Burdick Byrd Chafee Chiles Cohen Conrad Cranston D'Amato Danforth Daschle DeConcini Dixon Dodd Domenici Armstrong Bond Cochran Garn Graham Gramm Grassley Hecht Helms Biden Dole So YEAS-69 Durenberger Evans Exon Ford Fowler Glenn Harkin Hatch Hatfield Heflin Heinz Hollings Humphrey Inouye Johnston Kasten Kennedy Kerry Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lugar Matsunaga NAYS-27 Karnes Kassebaum McCain McClure McConnell Murkowski Nickles Pressler Quayle Melcher Metzenbaum Mikulski Mitchell Moynihan Nunn Packwood Pell - Proxmire Pryor Reid Riegle Rockefeller Sanford Sarbanes Sasser Shelby Simpson Specter Stafford Stennis Weicker Wirth Roth Rudman Stevens Symms Thurmond Trible Wallop Warner Wilson NOT VOTING-4 Gore Shnon the bill (H.R. 1212), as amended, was passed, as follows: H.R. 1212 Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 1212) entitled An Act to prevent the denial of employment opportunities by prohibiting the use of lie detectors by employers involved in or affect- ing interstate commerce," do pass with the following amendment: Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 March 3, 1988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: SECTION I. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Polygraph Protection Act of 1988". SEC 2. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Act: (1) COMMERCE.?The term "commerce" has the meaning provided by section 3(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(b)). (2) EMPLOYER.?The term "employer" in- cludes any person acting directly or indi- rectly in the interest of an employer in rela- tion to an employee or prospective employ- ee. (3) LIE DETECTOR TEST?The term "lie de- tector test" includes? (A) any examination involving the use of any polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress analyzer, psychological stress evaluator, or any other similar device (whether mechani- cal, electrical, or chemical) that is used, or the results of which are used, for the purpose of rendering a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty or dishonesty of an individual; and (B) the testing phases described in para- graphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 8(c). (4) POLYGRAPH.?The term "polygraph" means an instrument that records continu- ously, visually, permanently, and simulta- neously changes in the cardiovascular, res- piratory, and electrodermal patterns as min- imum instrumentation standards. (5) RELEVANT QUESTION.?The term "rele- vant question" means any lie detector test question that pertains directly to the matter under investigation with respect to which the examinee is being tested. (6) SECRETARY.?The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Labor. (7) TECHNICAL QUESTION.?The term "tech- nical question" means any control, sympto- ? matic, or neutral question that, although not relevant, is designed to be used as a measure against which relevant responses may be measured. SEC 3. PROHIBITIONS ON LIE DETECTOR USE. Except as provided in section 7, it shall be unlawful for any employer engaged in or af- fecting commerce or in the production of goods for commerce? (1) directly or indirectly, to require, re- quest, suggest, or cause any employee or pro- spective employee to take or submit to any lie detector test; (2) to use, accept, refer to, or inquire con- cerning the results of any lie detector test of any employee or prospective employee; (3) to discharge, dismiss, discipline in any manner, or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against? (A) any employee or prospective employee who refuses, declines, or fails to take or submit to any lie detector test; or (B) any employee or prospective employee on the basis of the results of any lie detector test; or (4) to discharge, discipline, or in any manner discriminate against an employee or prospective employee because? (A) such employee or prospective employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this Act; (Li) such employee or prospective employee has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding; or (C) of the exercise by such employee, on behalf of such employee or another person, of any right afforded by this Act. SEC. I. NOTICE OF PROTECTION. The Secretary shall prepare, have printed, and distribute a notice setting forth excerpts from, or summaries of, the pertinent provi- sions of this Act. Each employer shall post and maintain such notice, in conspicuous places on its premises where notices to em- ployees and applicants to employment are customarily posted. SEC. 5. AUTHORITY OF THE SECI?ETAIff. (a) IN GENERAL?The Secretary shall? ( 1) issue such rules and regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out this Act; (2) cooperate with regional, State, local, and other agencies, and cooperate with and furnish technical assistance to employers, labor organizations, and employment agen- cies to aid in effectuating the purposes of this Act; and (3) make investigations and inspections and require the keeping of records necessary or appropriate for the administration of this Act. (b) SUBPOENA AUTHORITY.?For the purpose of any hearing or investigation under this Act, the Secretary shall have the authority contained in sections 9 and 10 of the Feder- al Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 49,and 50). SEC 6. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS. (a) CIVIL PENALTIES.? (1) IN GENERAL?Subject to paragraph (2), any employer who violates any provision of this Act may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $10,000. (2) DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT.?In deter- mining the amount of any penalty under paragraph fl 1, the Secretary shall take into account the previous record of the person in terms of compliance with this Act and the gravity of the violation. (3) COLLECTION.?Any civil penalty as- sessed under this subsection shall be collect- ed in the same manner as is required by sub- sections (b) through (e) of section 503 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1853) with respect to civil penalties assessed under subsection (a) of such section. (b) INJUNCTIVE ACTIONS BY THE SECRE- TARY.?The Secretary may bring an action to restrain violations of this Act. The district courts of the United States shall have juris- diction, for cause shown, to issue temporary or permanent restraining orders and injunc- tions to require compliance with this Act. (c) PRIVATE CIVIL ACTIONS.? (1) LIABILITY.?An employer who violates this Act shall be liable to the employee or prospective employee affected by such viola- tion. Such employer shall be liable for such legal or equitable relief as may be appropri- ate, including but not limited to employ- ment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of lost wages and benefits. (2) COURT.?An action to recover the liabil- ity prescribed in paragraph (1) may be maintained against the employer in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdic- tion by any one or more employees for or in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. (3) COSTS.?The court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. (d) WAIVER OF RIGHTS PROHIBITED.?The rights and procedures provided by this Act may not be waived by contract or otherwise, unless such waiver is part of a written set- tlement of a pending action or complaint, agreed to and signed by all the parties. SEC. 7. EXEMPTIONS. I& NO APPLICATION TO GOVERNMENTAL EM- PLOYERS.?The provisions of this Act shall not apply with respect to the United States Government, a State or local government, or any political subdivision of a State or local government. (b) NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY EXEMP- TION.? S 1803 ( I) NATIONAL DEFENSE.?Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the adminis- tration, in the performance of any counter- intelligence function, of any lie detector test to? (A) any expert or consultant under con- tract to the Department of Defense or any employee of any contractor of such Depart- ment; or (B) any expert or consultant under con- tract with the Department of Energy in con- nection with the atomic energy defense ac- tivities of such Department or any employee of any contractor of such Department in connection with such activities. (2) SECURITY.?Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the administration, in the performance of any intelligence or coun- terintelligence function, of any lie detector test to? (A)(i) any individual employed by, or as- signed or detailed to, the National Security Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency, (ii) any expert or consultant under contract to the National Security Agency or the Cen- tral Intelligence Agency, (iii) any employee of a contractor of the National Security Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency, or (iv) any individual applying for a posi- tion in the National Security Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency; or (B) any individual assigned to a space where sensitive cryptologic information is produced, processed, or stored for the Na- tional Security Agency or the Central Intelli- gence Agency. (c) EXEMPTION FOR FBI CONTRACTORS.? Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the ,administration, in the perform- ance of any counterintelligence function, of any lie detector test to an employee of a con- tractor of the Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion of the Department of Justice who is en- gaged in the performance of any work under the contract with such Bureau. (d) LIMITED EXEMPTION FOR ONGOING INVES- TIGATIONS.?Subject to section 8, this Act shall not prohibit an employer from request- ing an employee to submit to a polygraph test if? (1) the test is administered in connection with an ongoing investigation involving economic loss or injury to the employer's business, including theft, embezzlement, misappropriation, or an act of unlawful in- dustrial espionage or sabotage; (2) the employee had access to the property that is the subject of the investigation; (3) the employer has a reasonable suspi- cion that the employee was involved in the incident or activity under investigation; and (4) the employer? (A) files a report of the incident or activity with the appropriate law enforcement agency; (B) files a claim with respect to the inci- - dent or activity with the insurer of the em- ployer, except that this subparagraph shall not apply to a self-insured employer; (C) files a report of the incident or activi- ty with the appropriate government regula- tory agency; or (D) executes a statement that? (i) sets forth with particularity the specif- ic incident or activity being investigated and the basis for testing particular employ- ees; ail is signed by a person (other than a polygraph examiner) authorized to legally bind the employer; (iii) is provided to the employee on re- quest; (iv) is retained by the employer for at least 3 years; and (v) contains at a minimum? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 , S 1804 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE March 3,)988 (I) an identification of the specific eco- nomic loss or injury to the business of the employer; (II) a statement indicating that the em- ployee had access to the property that is the subject of the investigation; and (III) a statement describing the basis of the employer's reasonable suspicion that the employee was involved in the incident or ac- tivity under investigation. (e) EXEMPTION FOR SECURITY SERVICES.? (1) IN GENERAL?Subject to paragraph (3), this Act shall not prohibit the use of a lie de- tector test on prospective employees of a pri- vate employer whose primary business pur- pose consists of providing armored car per- sonnel, personnel engaged in the design, in- stallation, and maintence of security alarm systems, or other uniformed or plainclothes security personnel and whose function in- cludes protection of? (A) facilities, materials, or operations having a significant impact on the health or safety of any State or political subdivision thereof, or the national security of the United States, as determined under rules and regulations issued by the Secretary within 60 days after the date of the enact- ment of this Act, including? (i) facilities engaged in the production, transmission, or distribution of electric or nuclear power; (ii) public water supply facilities; (iii) shipments or storage of radioactive or other toxic waste materials; and (iv) public transportation; or (B) currency, negotiable securities, pre- cious commodities or instruments, or pro- prietary information. (2) ComPLIANCE.?The exemption provided under paragraph (1) shall not diminish an employer's obligation to comply with? (A) applicable State and local law; and (B) any negotiated, collective bargaining agreement, that limits or prohibits the use of lie detec- tor tests on such prospective employees. ( 3) APPLICATION.?The exemption provided under this subsection shall not apply if? (A) the results of an analysis of lie detector charts are used as the basis on which a pro- spective employee is denied employment without additional supporting evidence; or (B). the test is administered to a prospec- tive employee who is not or would not be employed to protect facilities, materials, op- erations, or assets referred to in paragraph (1). (f) NUCLEAR POWER PLANT EXEMPTION.? This Act shall not prohibit the use of a lie detector test by an employer on any employ- ee or prospective employee of any nuclear power plant. This subsection shall not pre- empt or supersede any state or local law that prohibits or restricts the use of lie de- tector tests. (g) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preclude the use of a lie detector test to any expert or consultant or any employee of such expert or consultant under contract with any Federal Government department, agency, or program where a security clear- ance is required by the Federal Government for such expert or consultant and such expert or consultant, as a result of the con- tract, has access to classified and sensitive Government information. SEC. 8. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF EXEMPTIONS. (a) OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN LAWS AND AGREEMENTS.?The exemptions pro- vided under subsections (d) and (e) of sec- tion 7 shall not diminish an employer's obli- gation to comply with? (1) applicable State and local law; and (2) any negotiated collective bargaining agreement, that limits or prohibits the use of lie detec- tor tests on employees. (b) TEST AS BASIS FOR ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT AcrioN.?Such exemption shall not apply if an employee is discharged, dismissed, disci- plined, or discriminated against in any manner on the basis of the analysis of one or more polygraph tests or the refusal to take a polygraph test, without additional supporting evidence The evidence required by section 7(d) may serve as additional sup- porting evidence. (c) RIGHTS OF EXAMINEE.?Such exemption shall not apply unless the requirements de- scribed in section 7 and paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) are met. (1) PRETEST PHASE.?During the pretest phase, the prospective examinee? (A) is provided with reasonable notice of the date, time, and location of the test, and of such examinee's right to obtain and con- sult with legal counsel or an employee repre- sentative before each phase of the test; (B) is not subjected to harassing interro- gation technique; (C) is informed of the nature and charac- teristics of the tests and of the instruments involved; (D) is informed? (i) whether the testing area contains a two-way mirror, a camera, or any other device through which the test can be ob- served; (ii) whether any other device, including any device for recording or monitoring the conversation will be used,' or Mil that the employer and the examinee, may with mutual knowledge, make a record- ing of the entire proceeding; (E) is read and signs a written notice in- forming such examinee? (i) that the examinee cannot be required to take the test as a condition of employment; (ii) that any statement made during the test may constitute additional supporting evidence for the purposes of an adverse em- ployment action described in section 8(b); (iii) of the limitations imposed under this section; (iv) of the legal rights and remedies avail- able to the examinee if the polygraph test is not conducted in accordance with this Act; and (v) of the legal rights and remedies of the employer; and (F) is provided an opportunity to review all questions (technical or relevant) to be asked during the test and is informed of the right to terminate the test at any time; and (G) signs a notice informing such exam- inee of? (i) the limitations imposed under this sec- tion; (ii) the legal rights and remedies available to the examinee if the polygraph test is not conducted in accordance with this Act; and (iii) the legal rights and remedies of the employer. ( 2) ACTUAL TESTING PHASE.?During the actual testing phase? (A) the examinee is not asked any ques- tions by the examiner concerning? (i) religious beliefs or affiliations; beliefs or opinions regarding racial matters; (iii) political beliefs or affiliations; (iv) any matter relating to sexual behav- ior; and (v) beliefs, affiliations, or opinions regard- ing unions or labor organizations; (B) the examinee is permitted to terminate the test at any time; (C) the examiner does not ask such exam- inee any question (technical or relevant) during the test that was not presented in writing for review to such examinee before the test; (D1 the examiner does not ask technical questions of the examinee in a manner that is designed to degrade, or needlessly intrude on, the examinee; (E)the examiner does not conduct a test on an examinee when there is written evi- dence by a physician that the examinee is suffering from a medical or psychological condition or undergoing treatment that might cause abnormal responses during the test; and (F) the examiner does not conduct and complete more than five polygraph tests on a calendar day on which the test is given, and does not conduct any such test for less than a 90-minute duration. (3) POST-TEST PHASE.?Before any adverse employment action, the employer must? (A) further interview the examinee on the basis of the results of the test; and (B) provide the examinee with? al a written copy of any opinion or con- clusion rendered as a result of the test; and (ii) a copy of the questions asked during the test along with the corresponding charted responses. (d) QUALIFICATIONS OF EXAMINER.?The ex- emptions provided under subsections Id) and (e) of section 7 shall not apply unless the individual who conducts the polygraph test? (1) is at least 21 years of age; (2) has complied with all required laws and regulations established by licensing and regulatory authorities in the State in which the test is to be conducted,* 131(A) has successfully completed a formal training course regarding the use of poly- graph tests that has been approved by the State in which the test islo be conducted or by the Secretary; and (B) has completed a polygraph test intern- ship of not less than 6 months duration under the direct supervision of an examiner who has met the requirements of this sec- tion; (4) maintains a minimum of a $50,000 bond or an equivalent amount of profession- al liability coverage; (5) uses an instrument that records con- tinuously, visually, permanently, and simul- taneously changes in the cardiovascular, respiratory, and electrodermal patterns as minimum instrumentation standards; (6) bases an opinion of deception indicat- ed on evaluation of changes in physiological activity or reactivity in the cardiovascular, respiratory, and electrodermal patterns on the lie detector charts; (7) renders any opinion or conclusion re- garding the test? (A) in writing and solely on the basis of an analysis of the polygraph charts; (B) that does not contain information other than admissions, information, case facts, and interpretation of the charts rele- vant to the purpose and stated objectives of the test; and (C) that does not include any recommen- dation concerning the employment of the ex- aminee; and (8) maintains all opinions, reports, charts, written questions, lists, and other records re- lating to the test for a minimum period of 3 years after administration of the test. (e) PROMULGATION OF STANDARDS.?The Sec- retary shall establish standards governing individuals who, as of the date of the enact- ment of this Act, are qualified to conduct polygraph tests in accordance with applica- ble State law. Such standards shall not be satisfied merely because an individual has conducted a specific number of polygraph tests previously. SEC. 9. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION. (a) IN GENERAL.?A person, other than the examinee, may not disclose information ob- tained during a polygraph test, except as provided in this section. (b) PERMITTED DISCLOSURES.?A polygraph examiner, polygraph trainee, or employee of Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 March,?, 1988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE a polygraph examiner may disclose informa- tion acquired from a polygraph test only to? (1) the examinee or any other person spe- cifically designated in writing by the exam- inee; (2) the employer that requested the test; (3) any person or governmental agency that requested the test as authorized under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of section 7; or (4) any court, governmental agency, arbi- trator, or mediator, in accordance with due process of law, pursuant to an order from a court of competent jurisdiction. (c) DISCLOSURE BY EMPLOYER.?An employ- er (other than an employer covered under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of section 7) for whom a polygraph test is conducted may disclose information from the test only to a person described in subsection (b). SEC. 10. EFFECT ON OTHER LAW AND AGREEMENTS. This Act shall not preempt any provision of any State or local law, or any negotiated collective bargaining agreement, that is more restrictive with respect to the adminis- tration of lie detector tests than this Act. SEC. II. EFFECTIVE DATE. (a) IN GENERAL?Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act shall become effec- tive 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act. (b) REGULATIONS.?Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue such rules and regula- tions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out this Act. SEC. IL EXEMPTION FOR PREEMPLOYMENT TESTS FOR USE OF CONTROLLED SUB- STANCES. (a) IN GENERAL.?An employer, subject to section 7, may administer a scientifically valid test other than a lie detector test to a prospective employee to determine the extent to which the prospective employee has used a controlled substance listed in schedule I, II, III, or IV pusuant to section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812). 0.1 EXCEPTIONS.? ( I) ACCURACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY.--Para- graph (1) shall not supersede any provision of this Act or Federal or State law that pre- scribes standards for ensuring the accuracy of the testing process or the confidentiality of the test results. (2) COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.?If prospective employees would be subject to a negotiated collective bargaining agreement, paragraph (1) shall apply only if testing is conducted in accordance with such agree- ment. SEC 12. MEXICO STEEL LOAN. The Senate finds.? (1) during the past decade the United States steel industry has witnessed signifi- cant economic disruption and employment losses due to increased foreign competition; (2) the United States steel industry has lost more than $12,000,000,000, more than half its workforce, and closed scores of plants throughout the country; (3) in order to regain its competitive pos- ture, the United States industry has invested more than 8 billion dollars on moderniza- tion, obtained painful wage concessions from its remaining workforce, and slashed production capacity by one-third; , (4) there are more than 200,000,000 excess tons of steel capacity worldwide, causing severe financial strains on steel industries in many countries; (5) the proposed loan by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (hereafter referred to as the "World Bank") would provide Mexico's steel companies with subsidized financing to further the glut of worldwide steel production; (6) the proposed loan could do irreparable damage to the United States steel industry, therefore, it is the sense of the Senate that the proposed loan is not in the best interests of the United States or in the best interests of Mexico's own economic revitalization; and the World Bank should reject the pro- posed loan. SEC. 13. EFFECTIVE DATE. (a) IN GENERAL.?Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act shall become effec- tive 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act. (b) REGmAnoNs.?Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue such rules and regula- tions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out this Act. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I just want to say a few words about the staff who worked so hard to help us pass this legislation. Tom Rollins and Jay Harvey on Senator KENNEDY'S staff and Kevin McGuiness on my own staff all did an excellent job of putting together this compromise. I also want to thank Deanna Godfrey, Jeannette Carlile and Angela Pope on my Labor Committee staff who are so critical to my efforts on the floor. All have spent hours on this legislation and other issues, and their efforts often go un- acknowledged. I hope they know how much their work is appreciated. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to Mike Tiner, who has lived and breathed this issue for 3 years. His efforts were key to our success. Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to pro- ceed out of order on very important remarks for my State for 5 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. OREGON TIMBER SALE APPEALS Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to discuss a very se- rious situation that has developed in my home State over the last few days. Beginning last Wednesday, a very small segment of the environmental community in Oregon filed appeals on 36 timber sales being reoffered for sale on the Siskiyou National Forest under the provisions of the Federal Timber Contract Payment Modification Act of 1984. Then, on the first 3 days of this week, the same group filed 189 more appeals on three more national forests in Oregon: 80 appeals on the Siuslaw National Forest, 41 appeals on the Umpqua National Forest, and 68 ap- peals on the Willamette National Forest. These 225 appeals are more than were filed on all timber sales in both Oregon and Washington during the last 3 years combined. They were filed in spite of the fact that most of these reoffered sales were modified to improve them under the most current environmental standards. S 1805 They were filed despite the knowl- edge that most or all of the timber sale programs of each of the national forests involved would be delayed or completely halted, which would result in serious economic disruption through unemployment and lost Fed- eral forest and tax receipts to local governments. These appeals were filed despite clear evidence that it is the forest products industry that is among the leaders in Oregon's effort to move out of the economic recession that has burdened the State for nearly a decade. And of no apparent concern to the fringe. And I emphasize this, did not represent the mainstream' of envi- ronmental organizations. But a fringe environmental group precipitating this tidal wave of potential litigation, as many as 9,000 jobs hang in the bal- ance. And therein lies our dilemma, Mr. President. It is the continued unwill- ingness of one environmental faction to accept the lawful decisions of the Congress regarding the management of our public lands by awaiting the final forest plans, which leads us to these appeals. In their haste, and in pushing frivolous appeals by using word processors and simply inserting the name of a timber sale, these ac- tions constitute an end-run around a consensus process crafted through compromises made by all sides. My major concern is that this action is a polarizing affront to the consen- sus-building, earnest discussion-proc- ess which has been the hallmark of Oregon natural resource legislation. These appeals constitute a collapse in trust, a reckless provocation that actu- ally could serve to harm the environ- mental values they purport to protect. I am confident that the public will see this action for what it is and reject it so that there can continue to be a consensus approach to timber manage- ment and environmental protection issues. Mr. President, the bottom line is simply this: you cannot call yourself an environmentalist and at the same time support this type of irresponsible behavior. We environmentalists recog- nize that the very essence of the word is responsible stewardship of the Earth's natural resources. We debate how many jobs must be maintained. We debate what must be protected at all costs and what should be subject to compromise. We debate amongst our- selves as to the proper balance of de- velopment and preservation. And though these in-house disagreements occur frequently?and sometimes quite emotionally?the debate remains within the parameters of common sense. Some of these people have crossed that threshold more times than I can count, but today they have exhausted the last ounce of reason- ableness. The challenge to every 'person in my State who thinks of him- self or herself as a true environmental- Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17 : CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1 S 1806 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE ist is to let these people know that their masquerade party is over. We cannot allow them to exploit Oregon's reputation as reasonable people with a passionate love of the Earth. Let us call it like it is: these people are not environmentalists. They seek to set back the clock of environmental progress leaving behind the wreckage of people out of work and communi- ties in collapse. Such action tears down the well-earned reputation of the Oregon environmentalist commu- nity. Mr. President, those of my col- leagues with whom I have worked on national forest issues over the years, know that I have definite views about the importance of national forest man- agement to my State, indeed, to the entire Pacific Northwest. I have long believed that predictable multiple use forestry, implemented by using the best sustained-yield silvicultural meth- ods available, results in vital environ- mental protection and contributes to economic stability in our timer-de- pendent communities. This is especial- ly important considering that almost 60 percent of the forest products in- dustry in Oregon is dependent upon public timber for its supply of raw ma- terial. But let me remind my colleagues that the sale of public timber from our national forests did not begin until after World War II. Until that time, all of the forest products required by users in the United States and around the world came from those same pri- vate landowners who are now so re- viled. It should note construed from these comments that I support the unsus- tainable harvesting of timber. My record in this body establishes clearly my strong support for sustained-yield public forestry, as well as support for research that will lead to even greater yields from an increasingly narrower land base. Over the years I have supported these principles in the face of increas- ing assaults on balanced national forest management in my region by pseudo-enviranmentalists who do not speak for mainstream environmental concerns. In 1969, Congress passed the Nation- al Environmental Policy Act [NEPA], which established the process by which environmental impact state- ments were to be prepared. Through this process, the Federal Government would be required to analyze fully the potential effects of all its actions on our natural resources. I can recall Sen- ator Scoop Jackson offering the pre- diction that these EIS's would be doc- uments about a page long by which the public could easily determine al- ternative options for proposed actions. Today, in fact, these EIS's frequently run more than thousands of pages in length and are even heavier than those famous continuing resolutions about which the President is so fond of railing against the Congress. In our efforts to improve national forest management, we enacted the National Forest Management Act [NFMA] in 1976, in response, I might add, to an environmental lawsuit. NFMA went a step beyond the 1960 Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act by setting forth specific management cri- teria for such resource values as wild- life, watershed, timber, and recreation in a comprehensive national forest planning process. Oregon and Wash- ington are developing new manage- ment plans using these new guidelines. The plans are late, and there is much debate and discussion over their con- tent, but they are proceeding ahead. But for some, waiting is difficult. Some do not accept the process by which we manage our vast resources. And I am not referring to the Sierra Club, the Friends of the Columbia Gorge, the Wilderness Society, the Oregon Rivers Council, the National Wildlife Federation, the Audubon So- ciety, and other groups with which I have worked?and I add that they dis- agree with me often and vigorously, but they are reasonable about it and never abuse the process in the manner we are now witnessing. In fact, much of the last two decades has been spent working with these or- ganizations to shape natural resource policy. These fruitful efforts in Oregon were embodied in the two Roadless Area Review and Evaluation studies [RARE I and RARE a wil-- derness-bill-a-year for 20 years, and various other natural resource de- bates. During my years in this body I have had the pleasure of drafting and/or assisting in the passage of several pieces of resource legislation relating to Oregon. These efforts include the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, the Yaquina Head Recreation and Research Area, the Cascade Head National Research Area, all four of Oregon's Wild and Scenic Rivers, additions to Crater Lake National Park, the prohibition of mining in Crater Lake National Park, the buyout of mining claims in the Three Sisters Wilderness, the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, the quadrupling of Or- egon's Federal wilderness, and I will soon introduce a major Wild and Scenic Rivers bill for my home State. The environmental process that has been established through this record of coalition and consensus-building is now being abused through frivolous appeals and lawsuits, and the predict- able resource allocation that provides community stability for scores of timber-dependent economies is con- stantly jeopardized. But in this instance, Mr. President, the interests of the majority are being subjugated to those of a fringe minori- ty. In this instance, a system I still regard as workable and viable is being misused in a way that has nothing to , March 3,1988 do with merit or substance. Most chal- lenges to these timber sales have failed on their merits. And having failed on the merits, the challenges are now being directed at an already overburdened agency on procedural grounds. One could quickly draw the conclusion that these appeals have been offered to delay, distract, and harass. Sincere attempts to improve forest management are one thing, but sabotage of the process is another. I have labored for many years to ensure that the legitimate claims of concerned environmentalists are heard and acted upon. During a 1985 crisis involving the Mapleton Ranger Dis- trict of the Siuslaw National Forest, Congress authorized the substitution of reoffered timber sales for new green sales which were halted because of a court injunction. The purpose of this action was to ensure a smooth flow of raw material to timber-dependent communities while still ensuring that legitimate environmental concerns about new sales on lands without EIS's were protected. In 1986, in response to yet another challenge to timber sales?this time on the BLM's Medford District?Congress again provided for the agency to move reoffered sales forward While protect- ing the appeal rights of concerned en- vironmentalists. The theme has been consistent: the protection and balancing of competing legitimate interests in environmental disputes. I must admit that I cannot under- stand the motive for this latest attack on western Oregon's timber sale pro- gram. If the Forest Service or the Con- gress had pushed through the irra- tional harvesting of public timber on lands that had not been subjected to close planning, I might understand. But this is not the case. Over half of the sales being reoffered for sale under the 1984 Timber Contract Pay- ment Modification Act have been modified for environmental consider- ations. That has been done in spite of the fact that the land base remains narrower than it should be because lands released for multiple use man- agement under the 1984 Omnibus Oregon Wilderness Act have not yet been put into appropriate production. The new forest plans, once implement- ed in final form, will establish the ap- propriate land allocations for those re- leased lands. Mr. President, this brief recounting of natural resource policy in Oregon over the last 20 years illustrates that cooperation and reason are the two crucial elements for the successful res- olution of difficult public land con- flicts. Accordingly, I encourage those interested in resource protection issues to choose this proven path which leads to fairness, equity, and wise manage- ment, and to reject those irresponsible methods which lack respect and civil- ity for the process so many have worked so long to create. Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/17: CIA-RDP91B00390R000200200023-1