I have been monitoring the action of Congress in connection with H.R. 1524 and S. 1815. As you may know, I act as chairman of the Nevada State Private Investigator's Licensing Board, which licenses polygraph examiners in Nevada. In that capacity, I am familiar with the impact this legislation will have on the administration of polygraph examinations in the private sector, as well as with the respective concerns existing on all sides of this issue.

I would like to submit a written statement to the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources in connection with its consideration of S. 1815. David Johnson informs me that you have offered the services of your office to assist us in directing this material to the appropriate channels for filing with the Committee. Accordingly, enclosed with this correspondence you will find an original and one copy of the written testimony which I would like to offer.

Thank you for your courtesy in connection with this matter. If there is anything further that is necessary from us in order to ensure that these materials are appropriately filed, please contact me or David Johnson at your convenience.

Very truly yours,

Bein M Kay
жикам

BRIAN MCKAY
Attorney General

BM/DDJ: ck

Enclosures

Senator Hatch and other members of this committee:

I am offering this testimony for your consideration in connection with Senate Bill 1815. I am Brian McKay, Attorney General of the State of Nevada. I serve as Chairman of the Nevada State Private Investigator's Licensing Board, which licenses polygraphic examiners in Nevada. In that capacity, I have become familiar with the controversy surrounding polygraphic examinations, as well as with those procedures and policies that may be implemented to ensure the integrity of the polygraphic examination, the instrument, and the examiner. Certainly the polygraphic instrument

and the method in which the polygraphic test is administered is a controversial matter. I understand that in the Congressional Record on Wednesday, March 12, 1986, the polygraph was referred to as an unreliable tool, a voodoo craft, and was compared to dunking stools and firing squads. I disagree with these allegations. In my experience, when properly administered in strict compliance with stringent guidelines and controls, the polygraph can be a useful and effective technique for detecting criminal or other undesirable activity. In order to achieve this useful purpose, however, strict policies and procedures must be implemented not only to license but to regulate the polygraph examiner, his instrument, and the manner in which the polygraph examination is given.

In Nevada, for example, all polygraph examiners, with the exception of those employed by governmental agencies, must be licensed. This is so whether those polygraph examiners are

independent contractors or act as employees of private businesses.

Strict criteria are utilized to grant or deny applicants for a polygraph examiner's license. Polygraph examiners must be of good moral character and of temperate habits and must not have been convicted of felonies, crimes of moral turpitude, or crimes involving illegal possession of dangerous weapons. A polygraph license may be denied to any person who has committed any act of dishonesty or fraud, or who has demonstrated untruthfulness or a lack of integrity. Applicants must have successfully completed at least 250 polygraphic examinations, including at least 100 examinations concerning specific inquiries as distinguished from general examinations for the purposes of screening, and must also have been actively engaged in conducting polygraph examinations for at least two years prior to applying for a license. They must have also completed at least 24 hours of advanced polygraphic training acceptable to the licensing board during the two years immediately preceding the date of the application.

After licensing, polygraph examiners are strictly regulated and controlled to ensure that the manner in which they conduct examinations strictly complies with the guidelines established by the licensing board. Those guidelines deal not only with the manner in which the examiner conducts the polygraphic exam, but also with the condition, accuracy, and reliability of the instrument utilized in connection with the examination.

In Nevada, by statute, an individual undergoing a polygraphic examination may refuse to answer any question which would either be incriminating or which would be deemed to be degrading. Nor may a

polygraph examiner make inquiry into the religion, political affiliations, labor organization affilation, or sexual activities of any person examined, unless such inquiries are made at the request of the person being examined.

In my judgment, if all the foregoing procedures and policies are strictly complied with and enforced, the polygraphic examination can provide a fair and effective investigative tool for government and private industry. In Nevada, the gaming industry often makes use of the polygraph in connection with investigations into criminal activity. The gaming industry is a strictly regulated industry, whose legitimacy and credibility in the marketplace can be maintained only if the public is assured that gambling is conducted fairly and without any taint of criminal involvement. The casino industry is a business whose inventory is cash. Because of this it is understandable and legitimate for casino employers to strictly scrutinize the activity of their employees, especially those in cash-handling positions. Properly used, the polygraph can provide such employers with an effective technique to detect criminal activity on the part of employees. Such employers should not be denied access to that tool without careful reflection on the part of Congress.

Thank you for affording me the opportunity to address you.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. RUSSELL, ORKIN PEST CONTROL

I am Robert M. Russell of Orkin Pest Control, a division of Rollins, Inc. Orkin is the world's largest in structural pest control. We operate in 43 states in this country; we employ 5,000 people; we serve over a million customers. We offer these comments for our company, for all other conscientious users of pesticides, and on behalf of our employees and customers.

Structural pest control, as opposed to agricultural pest control, is a service industry. Our service is conducted in both commercial structures and in residential buildings. We help protect the food, the fiber, the structures, and even the health of our nation. To render this service, and as with most service industries, we send a trained technician to the customers' premises. As we are dealing with household insects and wood-destroying insects and organisms, our control

procedures are of necessity carried out inside the homes and buildings of our customers.

These chemical and

Control of pests necessitates the use of pesticides. botanical substances are safe to both our technicians and to others who might be exposed when label instructions are followed. Application is governed by both federal and state laws. Some of these materials, however, can be hazardous and even toxic should accidents occur or should a misapplication take place.

To

The importance

Because our technicians are sent into all areas of our customers' homes, and because they are using potentially harmful materials, we feel that we must protect our customers in every way possible and insure that our employees meet the highest standards of both integrity and morality. assist us in assuring that our prospective employees are totally qualified, we use polygraph where it is legal to do so. of polygraph to our industry cannot be overemphasized. industries are concerned about the potential impact of poor hires on their own business, our industry must be most concerned with the impact of poor hiring decisions on our customers. It would be catastrophic for us to put felons, drug addicts or others in our customers' or potential customers' homes.

While most