The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, Dr. Raskin. I would just like to say, as one of the recognized experts on polygraphing in the United States, I would appreciate your comments on the effectiveness of the States which regulate the use of the lie detector test, polygraph examination. Dr. RASKIN. Well, I think that the effectiveness has been more in specific applications and in criminal investigation than it has been in the employment context; that employers have found ways to get around these. I have been involved, for example, in lawsuits in the State of Connecticut, where they are not legal, and yet they are going on, and they bring in polygraph examiners or send people out-of-State, but they even do it within the State. And I think it has generally proven to be ineffective in the commercial sector, because there are fewer controls that can be exercised. The CHAIRMAN. Now, I notice that you have brought a polygraph examination machine with you. I wonder, could you take a moment and explain to the committee how the machine works, tell us a little bit about it? Would you like to come up and point it out to us? Dr. RASKIN. Yes, Senator. Basically, this instrument simply measures physiological responses, and this particular instrument measures breathing, blood pressure. And these attachments which are here, particularly this one here in my hand, measures the activity of the sweat glands in the hands. These are very sensitive responses. If I could just turn this on and show you how sensitive they are, it would give an indication of some of the problems, because in order to run a test like this, you have to have extremely great control of the situation. And many of the commercial applications ask vague questions under very poor circumstances, and each reaction occurs for a variety of reasons. For example, I am going to take a deep breath now, and you will see that pen rise dramatically like that. Many polygraph examiners think that that is an indication of deception, when in fact, all I have done is take a deep breath. This shows how sensitive these things are to a variety of factors, and there is no specific pattern that can be truly identified with lying with any degree of accuracy. It requires a very carefully conducted test by a skilled examiner who is psychologically sensitive to specific issues, and is properly interpreted. The CHAIRMAN. So each one of these attachments would add even more of a reaction, I take it? Dr. RASKIN. Yes, that is right. Each one of these would show changes, and you would maybe see blood pressure changes, breathing changes, and so on. And all of those can be produced by a variety of things, conditions, et cetera. The CHAIRMAN. All of those could be interpreted by a very skilled examiner with a lot of experience. Dr. RASKIN. A skilled examiner can do a very good job. The CHAIRMAN. You have indicated 85 percent accuracy. What if you had just a 5- to 15-minute polygraph examination. How would the accuracy percentage go? Would it go up or down? Dr. RASKIN. Well, with a 5- to 15-minute polygraph examination, there could be no chance of any kind of reliable result, and in fact, on truthful people, it may be less accurate than on someone who is lying. The CHAIRMAN. So literally, if you want to have an accurate examination, you have got to have a very good examiner who conducts a rather lengthy examination of 2 hours or more, and you have got to have an examiner who understands how to make an appropriate analysis of the material that arises as a result of the polygraph examination? Dr. RASKIN. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. And without an accurate correlation of all three, it is very unlikely you are going to have a really accurate test? Dr. RASKIN. That is true. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other factor that might enter into it? I have given you three broad categories, but is there anything else you would put into that consideration? Dr. RASKIN. Yes. I would add to that, certainly, there is the problem of the context in which the test is conducted, and in the employment context, it tends to be coercive, and there is little choice of the examinee as to whether or not to take the test. That is quite different, of course, from law enforcement investigation. So those coercive elements, the pressure that is put on the individual, can produce a higher rate of error and also be disruptive in terms of the work environment. The CHAIRMAN. Just one more time. The examiner has to be a quality examiner, very well-qualified, with a lot of experience. The test, in order to be accurate, or at least to have that high degree of accuracy, the 85 percent we are talking about, would have to be conducted over an extensive period of time, actually measured in hours, not minutes-am I correct in that? Dr. RASKIN. Right. The CHAIRMAN. And third, there has to be an effective analysis of the data and the line drawings that literally, the polygraph machine comes up with; is that correct? Dr. RASKIN. That is correct, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. In addition to that, you have other extraneous matters that also add to whether or not the polygraph examination is an accurate examination. Dr. RASKIN. Yes. There are two things that I would like to add to that. One is that the test should be specifically designed to assess a person's involvement in some past act; and second, vague lifestyle kinds of questions which get into personal issues present substantial problems. That is where I have a problem with some of the amendments. The CHAIRMAN. I see. What you did say, and I find it very intriguing, was if you have all three of those requisites are put together in an accurate and maximized process, still, if you only do the 5- to 15-minute examination, those who do tell the truth might be found more deceptive than those who do not? Dr. RASKIN. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. So in other words, this really would be a means of really hurting a lot of people in an application for employment context? Dr. RASKIN. Yes, Senator. I think we are talking about 100,000 to 200,000 people a year at least, in this country The CHAIRMAN. Yes-I mentioned 50,000. I think that is a high number of people. If you are talking 100,000 to 250,000 people a year who might possibly be mistreated as a result of inadequate or improperly administered or in some cases, really faulty polygraph examinations, that is a pretty high thing. Dr. RASKIN. Yes, I think so. The CHAIRMAN. That is one of the reasons why I have cosponsored this bill. I do see some of the arguments that industry is making, and they do have to have some methods, certainly in certain industries, to find out what they can do to protect the public and even fellow workers and even the industry itself. But there is a real question on tradeoffs here whether this is the way to do it or not. Dr. RASKIN. I think what you are doing here with this bill is a major step to improve the situation. The CHAIRMAN. Well, the fact of the matter is if most businesses really did what needed to be done, a 2-hour polygraph examination for each person they wanted to test, including employees that they are concerned about during the employment context, most of them probably would not do it because of the expenses involved; is that correct? Dr. RASKIN. I think that is correct. Industry tends to pay $35 to $50 for each of these tests, and there is no way they can get a proper test from a qualified trained professional for that kind of a fee. The CHAIRMAN. What would you think a qualified trained professional's test would range, if you could? Dr. RASKIN. Well, to do these properly, Federal standards, for example, are no more than two examinations a day; and if you talk about a highly trained person who is going to make a reasonably good salary, you are talking about many times what industry is paying now. The CHAIRMAN. I remember when Senator DeConcini and I were assigned by the Senate Judiciary Committee-and this will be my last question, because I have run out of time-to go down to the Bahamas and meet with Robert Vesco. Jack Anderson was with us, and we administered a polygraph examination to him-we did not do it, but a trained, very well-recognized polygraph examiner did. He asked at the most, I think, four to six questions over what was really a 3 to 4-hour polygraph examination-which, by the way, Mr. Vesco passed, which was very interesting to us. But I remember at that time, he said you could not ask a whole variety of questions. You had to limit them, you had to know what you were doing, and it had to be a very extensive process—which it was. I was amazed at that. You are saying that would be a much more accurate examination. Dr. RASKIN. Yes, Senator. Typically, three or four specific relevant questions are included in a criminal investigation-type test, and they are very specific. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I have used my time. Senator Kennedy. Senator KENNEDY. What percent of the private sector has the kind of competent and trained individuals to give these tests which you think would result in accurate results? Dr. RASKIN. Well, Senator, it is difficult to estimate that. In my experience, I have been generally very disappointed in what I have seen coming from those sources. So I would say if one out of three or four examiners operating under those circumstances is reasonably trained and doing a good job, I would be surprised that it would be that high. Senator KENNEDY. And the competency affects both the nature of the preliminary questions, and then I suppose it also is reflected in the analysis of the results? Dr. RASKIN. Yes, Senator. And also I think the lack of psychological sophistication of these people, just in terms of conducting the interview and being sensitive to the problems that that can produce on the charts themselves is a major difficulty, and they do not understand how to interpret these things when they see the charts. That is why the American Psychological Association has pointed that out as one of the major problems. Senator KENNEDY. Have you reviewed the kind of standard tests that are being applied in terms of employment requirements? Dr. RASKIN. Yes, I have seen many examples of those. Senator KENNEDY. And have you any comment that you would like to make as to whether they can really do what they are intended to do? Dr. RASKIN. Yes. I think they are poorly designed to accomplish the purposes that they want to accomplish. The questions tend to be vague, difficult to answer for almost anybody; too many questions, too many personal issues, too many things which one could not draw any conclusions whatsoever from, and yet they tend to rely on these for some unknown reason. Senator KENNEDY. Well, why do they structure it that way? Obviously, I would imagine they would want to have competent examiners and competent exams, competently interpreted. Dr. RASKIN. Well, Senator, I think there are two reasons. One is that the people who employ polygraph examiners to do this, tend to be business people who are experts in other areas, and they get sold a bill of goods essentially by the polygraph people in terms of how this magic technique is going to save them from all kinds of problems. The second thing is that when you include that many questions, and you put tremendous pressure on individuals and say, "If you do not admit every little thing that you are concerned about, you are going to fail this test," and then they make minor admissions that almost anybody could make about having not paid for their coffee at the coffee pot or something like that, they write all those things down and report them to the employer and disqualify them on that basis, particularly if they have other reasons to disqualify them. So they find it a handy tool, and they use whatever little bit of information they can get to accomplish their purposes. Senator KENNEDY. That gets back to the friendly polygrapher or the unfriendly polygrapher, and I suppose it would be fair to say you probably ought to polygraph the polygrapher. Dr. RASKIN. Yes, if the techniques were working well. Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Raskin. We appreciate your testimony, and thanks for bringing the machine along and explaining it in part to us. Thanks so much. Dr. RASKIN. Thank you, Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy. The CHAIRMAN. The first panel we are going to call will consist of Mary Braxton, of Toano, VA, who is accompanied by her attorney, Willafay McKenna. And of course, we are happy to welcome William Wynn, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. Mr. Wynn is accompanied by Mr. Michael Tiner. We are happy to welcome both of these witnesses to our committee. We will begin with Ms. Braxton. Now, I understand you are a little bit nervous, so you just relax. You are in good company, and we do want to hear what you have to say, and we will just turn the time over to you, Ms. Braxton. STATEMENT OF MARY C. BRAXTON, TOANO, VA, ACCOMPANIED When I was hired, I was required to sign a consent form which said that I would take a polygraph test whenever my employer wanted me to do so. The test I want to tell you about was given to me in 1978 after I had worked for my employer for 5 years. No one knew when tests would be given on that day in 1978. I went to work as usual without any idea that I would be tested. The test results were good, as far as I knew, and I went back to work, finished out the day and was off the next day. On my day off, my manager called me and informed me that I had to take another test. When I asked her why, she could not tell me. She did tell me I had to pay for it. When I told her I would take the test, but I was not going to pay, she said she was willing to pay for it. A friend of mine called me just after I talked with my manager. She said she had to take another test that day, because during the first test she had some medical problem. Before she could be retested, she had to go to the hospital and pay over $100 to get cleared for the test. I took her to the hospital. We were both nervous about the test, and she gave me a valium, which I took about 10 minutes before I went in. The examiner asked me, "Did I test you yesterday?" I told him, "Yes, but my manager told me to come in and be retested today.' He called the manager, and after that he went about testing me again. Before he hooked me up, he went over some questions, like my name, whether I worked for the employer, how long I had worked there, and what was my position. He also asked me questions about whether I had ever stolen, or if I knew of anyone who |