Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee: Various questions were posed during my testimony in opposition to S. 1815, and Senator Quayle has sent several written interrogatories concerning the hearing. I believe my written testimony and answers to the questions clearly articulate the policy of the Nevada Resort Association ("NRA"), Gaming Industry Association of Nevada, Inc. ("GIA"), and the gaming industry in Nevada. The State of Nevada actively regulates the use of polygraph examinations within the State. The parameters set forth in H.R. 3916 generally parallel the safeguards found in Nevada law. Regulation of polygraph use and examiners should be a matter left to the sovereign states. rather it is a privilege. Employment within the gaming industry in Nevada is not an automatic right Gaming licenses and "work cards" are granted by the State and enforced by the State Gaming Control Board concerning corporations and individuals in this industry. The polygraph has evolved as one of many investigative tools so that the industry and the State can ensure that patrons and visitors are not cheated. Sometimes state regulators request that our licensees (corporations) polygraph their own employees. Casinos are not Safeway stores. Unlike the Safeway, casinos have no inventory other than cash on hand. Therefore, inventory controls suitable for grocery stores are not applicable to Nevada resorts. The cash is counted and recorded in the count room There Nevada has a unique industry which requires different laws and regulations from other more traditional industries. The industry for over fifty years has developed for its patrons a system and product which must be desirable and honest. examinations are necessary tools for us to ensure the integrity of our product. Polygraph The CHAIRMAN. I have a lot of questions I could ask this group, and I respect each of you, but let us assume that the testimony we have had, even from the propolygraph experts, has indicated that polygraph examinations can be faulty a percentage of the time; that much depends on the examiner, much depends on the length of time, much depends on the quality of analysis. If we could come up with language in this bill that would permit polygraph examinations, but would require standards in all of those areas, would you be supportive of that type of legislation? Mr. Scheve. Mr. SCHEVE. Yes, sir. We need the standard. Mr. MATTHEWS. The American Trucking Association would, yes, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have had evidence here today from witnesses who testified for your organization that a 15-minute polygraph examination is not really a polygraph examination, and that it may take much more time and have to be much more considered than some of the things that have been going on. I might point out, Mr. Ostrovsky, that New Jersey bans the polygraph, as I understand it, so the gaming industry in New Jersey does not have the benefit of this, and they seem to be doing just fine. Mr. OSTROVSKY. That is correct. The New Jersey- The CHAIRMAN. They do have a method of enforcement in the gaming industry that is unheard of in other private industry. Mr. OSTROVSKY. What would that be, Senator? I am sorry. The CHAIRMAN. Maybe I had better not repeat that. [Laughter.] Mr. OSTROVSKY. But you will note that the House amendment was put forward by Congressman Hughes, who represents the State of New Jersey, and would have exempted the gaming industry. I think it is a clear indication that in New Jersey there is some consideration about expanding polygraphs to the gaming industry, and the amount of losses and the kinds of currency transactions we do are sort of the unaccountable. Unfortunately, Mr. Wynn testified that there are good records at Safeway about what goes through that register, and you can balance that against an inventory. That is very difficult to do in the casino industry. The CHAIRMAN. I understand. I have had a lot of meetings with businesspeople about this issue. I was really frankly shocked about how widespread is the use of polygraph examinations, especially short-duration polygraph examinations. I have really been kind of concerned about it. I have also had top businesspeople come in and say, "We would like to have the right to use it, but we do realize there are two sides to this question and that there are some abuses that really need to be corrected." Now, that is what I am concerned about, and I can tell you that I am not sure which direction to go, but I do lean very heavily toward this bill and the very stringent outlawing of polygraph examinations, unless we could come up with some language that really assures a resolution of these problems and assures the fairness in the workplace that presently does not exist, in my opinion. So I will dwell a great deal on your testimony and any other information you care to provide for me. I have been very appreciative of the business community in trying to enlighten us on why this is so important for them and I have been absolutely shocked at the widespread drug use when people apply for employment in this country, drug and alcohol abuse-and even in my own State, where people would like to believe there is less drug and alcohol abuse than other areas. It is very, very significant and very impressive to me that these are major problems that business has to confront. Yes, sir, Mr. Matthews. Mr. MATTHEWs. Senator, if I may make one final statement. We are not in the business of not hiring people. We cannot run a company unless we have people to work for us and do the things that have to be done. The thing that we need is a tool of this nature to help us screen those people who are not capable of doing the job we want done-driving those trucks safely; not being on drugs, not being on alcohol; not stealing from fellow employees as well as the company. We want to hire people, but we want to hire good people, and this is one of the tools we have with which to accomplish that. The CHAIRMAN. I understand. I understand that argument, and it is a fair argument. Mr. MATTHEWs. So, please do not take it away from us. The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is a fair argument. On the other hand, there is a lot of unfairness in the present system. Sometimes we have to do what is best under the circumstances. Right now, I have to admit I think there is a lot of unfairness in the way the system is used in this country. Mr. MATTHEWS. I would like to suggest that maybe you are seeing some isolated cases. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I will keep looking at it. I will keep looking. I want to keep an open mind on it. Mr. ZALE. Senator, if I could, I would comment to you that in our particular instance, we find that in States where we have no restrictions on polygraphs, that our inventory losses are approximately 25 percent of what they are in States where we cannot use the polygraph. As you saw, we deal in supercurrency. Now, we do not know where all of those billions of dollars go that are taken from our stores, but you have got to assume that a lot of it does go to support drug habits and other illegal activity. The CHAIRMAN. Would you be kind enough to submit some documentation to us on that? It might be very helpful to us-or any of the rest of you, also, because we do want to examine to the extent that we can-and I will invite the rest of the business community to participate-the differences between the regulated and nonregulated States, or the States that ban polygraphs versus the States that permit polygraphs and what the relative differences really are. So, I would like to have that information to the extent that your organizations or anybody affiliated with your organizations could provide it for us. I can see in each of your cases why you are concerned. I can see why the House put the exemptions in the House bill that it did. On the other hand, on the other side of that coin are 50,000 to 250,000 |