polygraph research funding programs and requests for proposals in order to prevent scientists who are critical of commercial polygraph applications from applying for federal research funds. The other major activity of the polygraph lobby is the promotion of the Polygraph Reform Act of 1985 as a substitute for the Polygraph Protection Act. The polygraph industry bill would permit commercial polygraph examinations, establish some minimal federal standards for such uses, prohibit some invasions of privacy and violations of civil rights, and provide civil penalties and some relief for violations. Unfortunately, the industry bill is very self-serving. It would permit voice stress analysis, provide a grandfather clause to circumvent certification requirements for those already in polygraph practice, permit examiners to conduct as many as 12 polygraph tests per day (a maximum of 2 examinations per day is the accepted standard among many federal agencies), and sanction the use of life-style questions about "sexual preferences or activities" in some industries. In order to obtain relief and/or damages, any person who is given a polygraph examination in violation of the provisions of the act would have to file a suit in federal court and would be allowed personal compensation only to the extent of unpaid minimum wages or overtime compensaton as determined under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Obviously, such a bill would do little to discourage the present abuses and provide meaningful compensation to their victims. Conclusions and Recommendations The lack of a scientific basis for commercial polygraph procedures, the sorry state of affairs in the polygraph industry, the frequent abuses produced by misapplications of polygraph techniques by incompetent polygraph examiners and insensitive and poorly informed employers, and the difficulty of correcting those problems by regulatory legislation is lamentable. For many years, the polygraph industry as been given encouragement and opportunities to correct those problems. Instead of taking constuctive steps to improve their techniques, raise their levels of competence and professionalism, and eliminate abuses; the polygraph industry has chosen only to attack its critics and resist reform. As a result, the problems have not been solved while the amount and extent of polygraph uses and abuses have grown dramatically. Given the intransigence of the polygraph industry, the best available option is the elimination of those practices by the adoption of S. 1815. If S. 1815 is passed and signed into law, many important applications of polygraph techniques would continue in government programs, law enforcement investigations, and judicial proceedings. Some of those uses are controlled by federal and local statutes and regulations. However, in a number of states many such applications are not regulated by statute, and many states and some federal agencies have no licensing or certification procedures or requirements. All polygraph programs which remain after the passage of S. 1815 should be highly regulated. The State of Utah adopted a licensing act for polygraph examiners in 1973, and it has been updated and vigorously implemented over the years. Such regulation and higher standards of training and performance should be applied to all polygraph examiners in the United States to assure the highest possible level of competence and integrity and to protect the public interest and the interests of those who undergo such examination procedures. Since polygraphs are utilized in ways which affect national security, criminal investigation, civil liberties, and individual rights and freedom; there is no room for anything less than the highest standard of excellence in training and applications. The passage of S. 1815 and strong regulation of the remaining applications are necessary to achieve those goals. Enclosed is the corrected copy of the hearing transcript on S. 1815. I have made a few minor corrections. I looked over the questions submitted by Senator Quayle. Unfortunately, I do not consider myself an expert on many of his inquiries and feel unable to provide answers to many of his questions. Some of his questions fell within my area of expertise, and I believe they have been addressed in my written statement and my oral testimony at the hearing. Thank you again for the opportunity to be of assistance on this important legislation. Sincerely, David C. Raskin, Ph.D. Professor DCR/dj enclosure 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? Enclosed is the corrected copy of the hearing transcript on S. 1815. I have made a few minor corrections. I looked over the questions submitted by Senator Quayle. Unfortunately, I do not consider myself an expert on many of his inquiries and feel unable to provide answers to many of his questions. Some of his questions fell within my area of expertise, and I believe they have been addressed in my written statement and my oral testimony at the hearing. Thank you again for the opportunity to be of assistance on this important legislation. Sincerely, Aläceiv E David C. Raskin, Ph.D. DCR/dj enclosure |