Order Code RL31988
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Polygraph Use by the Department of Energy:
Issues for Congress
Updated February 14, 2007
Alfred Cumming
Specialist in Intelligence and National Security
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Polygraph Use by the Department of Energy:
Issues for Congress
Summary
Four years after the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) questioned the
accuracy of polygraph testing, and some members of Congress urged the Department
of Energy (DOE) to use the polygraph as a counterintelligence rather than as a
general screening tool, DOE on October 30, 2006, eliminated the use of polygraph
testing for screening applicants for employment and incumbent employees without
specific cause.
DOE said its new counterintelligence evaluation regulations are consistent with
Intelligence Community practices and more in line with NAS’s 2002
recommendations, which questioned the scientific validity of the polygraph,
particularly in cases when it is used to screen applicants rather than to investigate
specific events.
Under its new regulations, DOE will require a polygraph examination only if
one of the following five causes is triggered: (1) if a counterintelligence evaluation
of an applicant or incumbent employee reveals foreign nexus issues which warrant
a polygraph exam; (2) if an incumbent employee is to be assigned within DOE to
activities involving another agency and a polygraph examination is required as a
condition of access to the activities by the other agency; (3) if an incumbent
employee is proposed to be assigned or detailed to another agency and the receiving
agency requests DOE to administer a polygraph examination as a condition of the
assignment or detail; (4) if an incumbent employee is selected for a random
counterintelligence evaluation; or (5) if an incumbent employee is required to take
a specific-incident polygraph examination.
DOE said that instituting a “specific-cause” standard will significantly reduce
the number of individuals who will undergo polygraph testing.
This report examines how DOE’s new polygraph screening policy has evolved
and reviews certain scientific findings with regard to the polygraph’s accuracy. As
part of its continuing oversight of DOE’s polygraph program, the 110th Congress
could address several issues, including whether DOE’s new screening program is
sufficiently focused on a small number of individuals occupying only the most
sensitive positions; program implementation; the desirability of further research into
scientific validity of the polygraph and possible alternatives to the polygraph; and
whether to continue or discontinue polygraph screening.
This report will be updated as warranted.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Some See Polygraph’s Utility But Many DOE Scientists Are Skeptical . . . . 4
Dearth of Scientific Evidence Underlying the Polygraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
What the Available Evidence Does Show . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Congress Instructs DOE To Develop New Polygraph Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
DOE’s January 7, 2005 Proposed Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
DOE’s 2006 Final Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A More Focused Polygraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Additional Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Discard Use Of Polygraph For Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

---

Polygraph Use by the Department of
Energy: Issues for Congress
Introduction
Since its establishment in 1977, the Department of Energy (DOE) frequently has
been criticized for its lax approach to counterintelligence (CI), particularly at its
nuclear weapons laboratories.1 After years of increasingly critical CI reviews
culminated in 1998 with discovery of intelligence evidence suggesting that the
People’s Republic of China (PRC) had stolen secrets from DOE’s national security
laboratories,2 President Clinton fundamentally restructured DOE’s CI program.3
To tighten security, DOE was directed to develop and implement specific
security measures, including the possible use of the polygraph to screen employees
with access to certain classified and sensitive intelligence information.4
1 DOE has three nuclear weapons laboratories where classified nuclear weapons research
is conducted: Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM; Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, Livermore, CA; and Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM
and Livermore, CA.
2 As part of its counterintelligence review at the time, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) investigated Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwan-born U.S. scientist at the Los Alamos lab.
Although the FBI never charged Lee with espionage, the Justice Department in 1999 did
indict him Lee on 59 felony counts of mishandling nuclear weapons information —
information which was unclassified at the time of the he was charged with mishandling. In
the year 2000, Lee pleaded guilty to one count of mishandling national defense information
For a comprehensive review, see CRS Report RL30143, China, Suspected Acquisition of
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Secrets, by Shirley Kan. See also Attorney General’s Review Team
on the Handling of the Los Alamos Laboratory Investigation, May, 2000, at
[http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp].
3 Presidential Decision Directive 61, February, 1998.
4 A “screening” polygraph is one that is conducted in situation when there is no specific
event under investigation and generally has been used, for example, to screen an applicant
or an employee who will or already has access to certain classified and sensitive
information. In these cases, the polygraph is not being used to investigate a specific event,
and therefore the questions posed are necessarily generic (e.g., “Did you ever reveal
classified information to an unauthorized person?”). By contrast, questions posed as part
of a “specific-event” polygraph often are less ambiguous (e.g., “Did you see the victim on
Monday?” or “Did you take the file home yesterday?”) In its 2002 report, NAS concluded
that polygraphs as currently used to screen applicants have serious limitations, and that the
accuracy of the polygraph in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from
innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security
screening in federal agencies. NAS also concluded, however, that specific-incident
(continued...)

---

CRS-2
In March 1999 DOE initiated its first-ever polygraph screening program, testing
approximately 800 DOE federal and contractor employees employed in certain high-
risk programs.5 The employees were given a so-called CI-scope polygraph test,
which was limited to questions concerning the individual’s involvement in
espionage, sabotage, terrorism, unauthorized disclosure of classified information,
unauthorized foreign contacts, and deliberate damage to or malicious misuse of a
U.S. Government information or defense system.
In August 1999, DOE proposed expanding its polygraph testing program to
include DOE contractors who had access to its most sensitive and classified
information and materials,6 raising the number of employees subject to such testing
from 800 to 3,000.
But Congress wanted more polygraph testing and in the fall of 1999 approved
legislation that expanded to 13,000 the number of DOE employees subject to
polygraph examination by adding to the list of high risk programs requiring such
testing DOE’s so-called Special Access Programs (SAPs) and Personnel Security and
Assurance Programs. Congress also mandated what until then had been a DOE-
discretionary polygraph program.7
Despite Congress’s action to expand polygraph testing, DOE Secretary Bill
Richardson announced in December of that year that the Department’s CI interests
could be satisfied by testing 800 individuals8 and indicated a desire to seek new
legislation that would ensure that DOE’s polygraph implementation plan was
consistent with congressional directives.
Congress responded in the year 2000 by further increasing the number of DOE
employees subject to polygraph testing, designating those with access to so-called
Sensitive Compartmented Intelligence to such testing.9
Some DOE nuclear weapons laboratory employees, however, continued to
criticize polygraph testing, and in 2001 Congress directed DOE to develop a new
polygraph program — one that would strike an appropriate balance NAS’s concern
4 (...continued)
polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though
well below perfection. See National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences, The Polygraph and Lie Detection, 2002, pp. 1-4.
5 United States Department of Energy News, DOE Polygraph Implementation Plan
Announced, December 13, 1999.
6 Federal Register 64, no. 242 (Dec. 17, 1999), p. 70963.
7 P.L. 106-65, Sec. 3154.
8 United States Department of Energy News, DOE Polygraph Implementation Plan
Announced, Dec. 13, 1999. DOE had planned to polygraph 3,000 employees, but that
number was reduced to 800 after some weapons lab employees who opposed polygraph
testing criticized such testing. See Andrea Widner, “DOE Lab Employees Protest New Law
Mandating Polygraph Tests,” Knight Ridder/Tribune News, Nov. 9, 2000.
9 P.L. 106-398, Sec. 3135.

---

CRS-3
about the accuracy of the screening polygraphs and the need to minimize
unauthorized disclosure of classified and information.10 After an initial attempt to
meet the new congressional directive was criticized by some Members of Congress,
DOE re-examined its approach, which led to the adoption of the new October 2006
policy.
Background
Supporters and opponents continue to debate the validity and reliability of the
modern polygraph machine, which was first developed in the early 1900s. What is
not subject to debate and appears to be beyond dispute is that the polygraph does not
detect lies. Rather it is an instrument that charts changes in an individual’s
respiration, heart rate, blood pressure, and sweat gland activity in response to a series
of yes or no questions.11 Polygraph examiners determine whether a person’s
physiological reaction is stronger in responding to certain questions when contrasted
with recorded reactions to a series of comparison or “control” questions. Stronger
reactions indicate that the individual may be deceptive. It is these physiological
responses which are at the heart of the ongoing debate over the validity of polygraph
testing.12 Scientists studying the polygraph also distinguish between the “polygraph
test” and the “polygraph examination.” The test itself first represents an attempt to
capture accurate psycho physiological indicators of deception. The polygraph
examination, however, includes both the test and the interrogation surrounding it, and
arguably is a tool for revealing truth.13
The polygraph generally is used in three circumstances: event specific or
exculpatory, i.e., when a crime has been committed; preemployment screening; and
current employee screening. The Intelligence Community (IC) uses the polygraph
both as an investigative tool and as a screening device. The Department of Defense
(DOD) uses the device almost exclusively as an investigative tool, although DOD
also uses it to screen employees, but only in limited cases when the employee
requires exceptional clearances for highly sensitive programs.14
DOE has long used the polygraph as an investigative tool, but only as a
screening device since 1999, when it began to screen employees requiring access to
high-risk programs. The Department adopted screening polygraphs after intelligence
10 P.L. 107-107, Sec. 3152.
11 A polygraph instrument will collect physiological data from at least three systems in the
human body. Convoluted rubber tubes that are placed over the examinee’s chest and
abdominal areas will record respiratory activity. Two small metal plates, attached to the
fingers, will record sweat gland activity, and a blood pressure cuff, or similar device, will
record cardiovascular activity.
12 National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, The Polygraph and Lie
Detection, 2002, p. 13.
13 Ibid., p. 21.
14 Commission on Science and Security, Science and Security in the 21st Century, A Report
to the Secretary of Energy on the Department of Energy Laboratories, Apr., 2002, p. 54.

---

CRS-4
information surfaced that the PRC may have stolen secrets from DOE’s weapons labs
and following President Clinton issuance of PDD 61, which directed DOE to
consider establishing a polygraph screening program as one component of a
comprehensive CI program. The program was also to include background checks,
periodic reinvestigations, monitoring of financial records, restrictions on publishing
materials, and, for some employees, mandatory drug testing and medical
assessments.15
DOE cited three reasons for adopting polygraph screening. First, it asserted that
such testing could deter unauthorized disclosures of classified information as well as
provide early warning of unauthorized disclosure of classified or sensitive
information, allowing DOE to more promptly mitigate any damage to the national
security. Second, DOE stated that polygraph examinations would speed the granting
of interim personnel security clearances. And, third, DOE argued that employees
with unresolved CI issues could resolve those issues more quickly by being able to
exercise the option to be polygraphed. Throughout the ongoing debate on polygraph
testing, DOE has taken the position that it will take not take an adverse personnel
action solely on the basis of a polygraph result indicating deception.16
Some See Polygraph’s Utility But Many
DOE Scientists Are Skeptical
Many DOE laboratory personnel have a “very negative” attitude towards the
polygraph, according to the report of the “Redmond Panel,” a panel of experts which
reviewed DOE CI capabilities at DOE’s national security laboratories on behalf of
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.17 The attitude toward
polygraphs at the laboratories, according to the Panel, runs the gamut from cautiously
and rationally negative, to emotionally and irrationally negative.18 The Panel noted
in its findings that never before have so many cleared employees of a government
organization had to have their clearances threatened by the institution of the
polygraph.19
The Panel also noted that scientists do, in fact, represent a particular problem
with regard to the administration of polygraphs. “They are most comfortable when
dealing with techniques that are scientifically precise and reliable,” the Panel stated.
“The polygraph, useful as it is as one of several tools in a CI regimen, does not meet
this standard. Accordingly, many scientists who have had no experience with it are
skeptical of its utility.”20 Redmond and his colleagues also noted, however, that
“...polygraphs, while not definitive in their results, are of significant utility in a
15 Federal Register 64, no. 242 (Dec. 17, 1999), p. 70962.
16 Federal Register (Volume 71, Number 189), Sept. 29, 2006, pp. 57389.
17 U.S. Congress, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Report of the
Redmond Panel, June 21, 2000, pp. 7-8.
18 Ibid., p. 7.
19 Ibid., p. 7.
20 Ibid., p. 8.

---

CRS-5
broader comprehensive CI program. The polygraph is an essential element of the CI
program and it will not work until it is accepted by those who are subject to it.”21
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) agreed that the polygraph has a
degree of utility, concluding that such testing has some utility in “deterring security
violations, increasing the frequency of admissions of such violations, deterring
employment applications from potentially poor security risks, and increasing public
confidence in national security organizations....Such utility derives from beliefs about
the procedure’s validity, which are distinct from actual validity or accuracy.”22 Still,
NAS questioned the polygraph’s scientific validity and was generally critical of its
use, particularly for screening purposes.
Some critics, however, question not only the polygraph’s validity but also its
utility. The Society of Professional Scientists and Engineers, an association of
current and retired scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, is one such
critic. “Their unreliability renders polygraphs incapable of catching spies and can
lead to false accusations of innocent workers who may find themselves defenseless
against the machine’s oscillations,” according to the Society.23 Critics assert further
that polygraph testing has failed to uncover such prominent spies as Aldrich Ames
and can be rendered ineffective by countermeasures.
Dearth of Scientific Evidence
Underlying the Polygraph
As distinct from the polygraph’s utility, supporters and critics alike agree that
scientific evidence supporting the accuracy of polygraph screening is extremely
limited. NAS, for example, reported that it could identify only one flawed field
study containing relevant evidence with regard to the accuracy of preemployment
polygraph screening.24 The American Polygraph Association (APA), the country’s
largest association of polygraphers, acknowledges that such evidence is scant, but
blames limited research funding.25 NAS apparently agrees, noting that the lack of
serious investment in such research is “striking,” given the government’s heavy
reliance on the polygraph, especially for screening for espionage and sabotage. 26
21 Ibid., p. 8.
22 The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, The Polygraph and
Lie Detection, 2002, p. 6.
23 Society of Professional Scientists and Engineers, SPSE Speaks Out on Polygraphs, Aug.
13, 1999.
24 The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, The Polygraph and
Lie Detection, 2002, p. 3.
25 American Polygraph Association, Statement of the American Polygraph Association
Pertaining to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Report on the Use of the Polygraph,
undated.
26 The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, The Polygraph and
(continued...)

---

CRS-6
What the Available Evidence Does Show
In generally criticizing the use of the polygraph, particularly for screening
purposes, NAS concluded that the polygraph yields an unacceptable choice for DOE
employee security screening between too many loyal employees falsely judged
deceptive and too many major security threats left undetected. According to NAS,
the polygraph’s accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from
innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security
screening in federal agencies.27
NAS acknowledged that polygraph screening may have some utility for
achieving such objectives as deterring security violations, increasing the frequency
of admissions of such violations, deterring employment applications from potentially
poor security risks, and increasing public confidence in national security
organizations. But it noted that such utility derives from beliefs about the validity of
the procedure, and are distinct from “actual validity or accuracy.”28
NAS also found that the polygraph simply is not sufficiently accurate to merit
its use for screening of the type of population found at DOE. According to NAS, the
proportion of spies, terrorists and other major national security threats among the
employees subject to polygraph testing in DOE labs presumably is very low, and
polygraphs therefore should not be counted on for detection when screening
populations with low rates of the target transgressions. “Screening in populations
with very low rates of the target transgressions (e.g., less than 1 in 1,000) requires
diagnostics of extremely high accuracy, well beyond what can be expected from
polygraph testing.”29
NAS also reported that countermeasures pose a potentially serious threat to the
performance of polygraph testing because the physiological indicators measured by
the polygraph can be altered by conscious efforts through cognitive or physical
means. “There is enough empirical evidence to justify concern that successful
countermeasures may be learnable,” NAS noted in its report.30
NAS’s findings essentially track the results of a similar research review
conducted by the Congressional Office of Technical Assessment (OTA) in 1983.
OTA concluded that the evidence establishing the polygraph’s scientific security
when used for screening was insufficient. OTA also noted the impossibility of
establishing the overall validity of the polygraph, citing two reasons. First, the
polygraph examination encompasses a process that is far more complex than the
instrument itself, according to OTA. The types of individuals tested, the examiner’s
26 (...continued)
Lie Detection, 2002, p. 8.
27 Ibid., p. 6.
28 Ibid., p. 8.
29 Ibid., p. 5.
30 Ibid., p. 216.

---

CRS-7
training, the purpose of the test, and the types of questions asked, among other
factors, can differ substantially, one test from the next, OTA asserted. Second, OTA
reported that research on polygraph validity varies widely in terms of results and the
quality of the research design and methodology. “... [C]onclusions about scientific
validity can be made only in the context of specific applications and even then must
be tempered by the limitations of available research evidence,” OTA stated.31
Supporters of polygraph testing, such as the APA, counter skeptics by citing 80
different research projects conducted since 1980 showing polygraph accuracy ranges
of 80-98 percent.32 While conceding that most of the those research projects have
studied event-specific polygraph testing rather than pre-employment or employment
screening, supporters argue that “real world conditions are difficult if not impossible
to replicate in a mock crime or laboratory environment for the purpose of assessing
effectiveness.”33
They further contend that the same physiological measures are recorded, and
the same basic psychological principles may apply, in both event specific and pre-
employment screening polygraph examinations. Thus, they argue, there is no reason
to believe that there is a substantial decrease in the accuracy rate for the
preemployment circumstance as compared to the event-specific polygraph. The few
studies that have been conducted on preemployment testing support this contention,
according to these supporters .34
U.S. intelligence agencies also remain convinced that the polygraph is a useful
screening tool. The CIA, for example, cited classified research to support its use of
polygraph testing but declined to share its research findings with OTA.35
In its 1983 report, OTA asserted that the CIA and the National Security Agency
(NSA) employ the polygraph as an interrogation technique with the goal of
encouraging admissions rather than as a method to determine deception or
truthfulness, per se. OTA further noted that NSA security adjudicators are more
interested in the pre-test and post-test responses than in any other examination results
produced by the polygraph. OTA concluded that the Intelligence Community’s
research measured the polygraph’s utility, rather than its scientific validity.
31 Office of Technology Assessment, Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing, Nov. 1983,
p. 4.
32 American Polygraph Association, Polygraph Issues and Answers, undated.
33 American Polygraph Association, Statement of the American Polygraph Association
Pertaining to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Report on the Use of the Polygraph,
undated.
34 American Polygraph Association, Polygraph Issues and Answers, undated.
35 Office of Technology Assessment, Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing, Nov. 1983,
p. 100.

---

CRS-8
Congress Instructs DOE To Develop New
Polygraph Program
The FY2002 National Defense Authorization Act36 directed DOE to develop a
new polygraph program, taking into account NAS’s polygraph findings questioning
the accuracy of screening polygraphs. At the same time, the Congress instructed that
the purpose of any such new program should be to minimize the potential for release
or disclosure of classified data, materials, or information.
To satisfy the congressional directive, DOE on April 14, 2003, published a
notice of proposed rule-making “to begin a proceeding to consider whether to retain
or modify [DOE’s] current Polygraph Examination Regulations.”37 While
acknowledging NAS’s recommendation that the polygraph not be used to screen
employees, and Congress’s directive that NAS’s views on the issue be taken into
account, DOE Secretary Abraham38 said the Energy Department would retain
polygraph screening as one of several CI tools. He said that DOE’s polygraph
program was “consistent with the statutory purpose of minimizing the risk of
disclosure of classified data,”39 and pointed out that DOE uses the polygraph only in
conjunction with other information and only as a trigger for a detailed follow-up
investigation, not as a basis for personnel action. This, according to Abraham, was
compatible with NAS’s conclusion that if polygraph screening is to be used at all, it
should be used in this fashion.40
Critics of the Secretary’s decision, including Senator Jeff Bingaman, said
relying on a technique as inaccurate as the polygraph could produce a false sense of
confidence. That overconfidence, Bingaman suggested, “can be the real danger to
national security.” Applying polygraphs to employee screening could lead to either
too many loyal employees who will be judged deceptive, or too many major security
threats undetected, Bingaman noted.41 Senator Pete Domenici agreed, saying, “I
continue to believe that the system is too much an affront[,] especially since the
polygraph program was so thoroughly criticized by the National Academy of
Sciences. I hope the department will rethink this situation.”42
36 P.L. 107-107, Section 3152.
37 Federal Register 68, no. 71, p. 17886.
38 Spencer Abraham was sworn in as DOE’s 10th secretary on Jan. 20, 2001. He served in
that position until being replaced by Dr. Samuel Bodman, assumed that office on February
1, 2005.
39 United States Department of Energy News, DOE Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
on Polygraph Use, Apr. 14, 2003.
40 Ibid.
41 Press Statement of Sen. Bingaman, Apr. 14, 2003. Sen. Bingaman is the Ranking Member
of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which has legislative
jurisdiction over DOE.
42 News release of Sen. Domenici, Domenici: DOE Worries Shouldn’t Mean Continuation
of Flawed Polygraph Policy, Apr. 15, 2003. Sen. Dominici is the Chairman of the Senate
(continued...)

---

CRS-9
In issuing a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rule in lieu of DOE’s April 2003
preliminary proposal, DOE officials apparently did rethink their approach. DOE
Deputy Secretary McSlarrow43 foreshadowed the Department’s new approach,
testifying before Congress on September 4, 2003, that he had recommended to
Secretary Abraham that DOE issue a new regulation that would sharply curtail
polygraph screening.44 In testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, McSlarrow said DOE should retain mandatory polygraph screening only
for individuals with regular access to the most sensitive information. The result,
according to McSlarrow, would be to reduce “the number of individuals affected
from well in excess of potentially 20,000 ... to approximately 4,500...”45 In
recommending a more focused program, he cited NAS’s findings that polygraph
accuracy is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in screening individuals. But he
also said that DOE’s use of the polygraph as a screening device conformed with
NAS’s recommendation that such screening should be used only as a trigger for
further testing and investigation and only in conjunction with the collection of other
information about the individual.46
In advocating random polygraph testing, McSlarrow cited the NAS’s finding
that “polygraph screening may be useful for achieving such objectives as deterring
security violations, increasing the frequency of admissions of such violations, [and]
deterring employment applications from potentially poor security risks,” and that
predictable polygraph testing probably has less deterrent value than random
testing.”47
Senator Domenici commended McSlarrow’s testimony and DOE’s apparent
willingness to radically revise its polygraph test policy. “I have been appalled by
DOE’s continued massive use of polygraph tests in the wake of a national study
condemning the reliability of these tests ... I commend DOE for announcing plans to
substantially reduce the number of people subject to polygraphs and to ensure that
no negative actions are taken based on a single polygraph result,” he said.”48
Senator Bingaman warned, however, that although DOE’s proposed new
polygraph policy as outlined by McSlarrow was a step in the right direction, he
42 (...continued)
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which has legislative jurisdiction over DOE.
43 Kyle E. McSlarrow served as DOE Deputy Secretary, 2003-2005.
44 Statement of Kyle E. McSlarrow before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Department of Energy Polygraph Policy, September 4, 2003.
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 Statement of Kyle E. McSlarrow before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Department of Energy Polygraph Policy, September 4, 2003.
48 Press statement of Sen. Domenici, Domenici Commends DOE for Sharply Reducing
Number of Employees Subject to Polygraph Testing, September 4, 2003.

---

CRS-10
continued to have serious reservations about DOE’s polygraph use because the
scientific evidence does not support the use of polygraphs as a screening tool.49
DOE’s January 7, 2005, Proposed Rule
DOE’s January 7, 2005, supplemental proposed rule50 mirrored McSlarrow’s
earlier recommendations by retaining mandatory polygraph screening already in
place for those occupying:
! all counterintelligence positions;
! all positions in the Headquarters Office of Intelligence and at the
Field Intelligence Elements; and
! all positions in the DOE Special Access Programs (and non-DOE
Special Access Programs if a requirement of the program sponsor).
Individuals with continuing routine access to all DOE-originated Top Secret
information, including Top Secret Restricted Data and Top Secret National Security
Information, also would be polygraph screened. This group — probably less than
1,000 complex-wide — would not include everyone with a “Q”51 clearance, or a Top
Secret clearance, nor would it include all DOE weapons scientists. Rather, it would
cover only those whose positions require continuing, routine access to Top Secret
Restricted Data or other DOE-originated Top Secret information.52
Under the proposal, certain managers, with input from the Office of
Counterintelligence and subject to approval of either the Secretary or the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, would be authorized
to identify additional individuals within their offices or programs who would be
subject to polygraph screening. This category of individual, however, would be
limited to those having regular access to information or other materials presenting the
highest risk.53
The supplemental proposed rule also would institute a random screening
program affecting those positions whose level and frequency of access, while not
requiring mandatory screening, nevertheless would warrant some additional measure
49 Press statement of Sen. Bingaman, Bingaman Raises Concerns About DOE’s New
Polygraph Policy, September 4, 2003.
50 See Federal Register, January 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 5), p. 1387.
51 A “Q” clearance provides clearance to sensitive compartmented intelligence pertaining
to nuclear weapons.
52 See Federal Register, January 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 5), p. 1387.
53 Ibid.

---

CRS-11
of deterrence against damaging disclosures.54 McSlarrow estimated that 6,000
individuals would be eligible for random polygraphing, but that only a minimum
percentage of that number would be subject to a polygraph during any single year.
Those subject to a random polygraph would include:
! all positions in the Offices of Security, Emergency Operations, and
Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance that are not
designated for the mandatory screening program;
! positions with routine access to Sigma 14 and 15 weapons data
(Sigma 14 and Sigma 15 refer respectively to vulnerability
information and use control information in connection with the
nuclear weapons program); and
! system administrators for classified cyber systems.
The proposed rule permitted “specific incident” polygraph examinations in
those cases when specific facts or circumstances raised counterintelligence concerns
with a “defined foreign nexus.”
Under the proposed rule, DOE would not take any adverse personnel action nor
deny an individual access to certain information or programs solely because of
certain polygraph examination results.
DOE’s 2006 Final Rule

On October 31, 2006, DOE issued its final rule establishing new CI evaluation
regulations. The new regulations largely mirror the provisions of the January 7, 2005
supplemental proposed rule, with one principal exception. DOE’s final rule
stipulates that DOE must have a specific cause to administer a polygraph; the January
7, 2005 proposed rule contain no such conditionality. The final rule eliminates
polygraph testing for general screening of applicants for employment and for
incumbent employees without specific cause [emphasis added], a policy which DOE
asserts is consistent with Intelligence Community practices and the NAS report.55

Under the its new CI regulations, DOE will require a polygraph examination
only if one of the following five causes is triggered: (1) if a counterintelligence
evaluation of an applicant or incumbent employee reveals foreign nexus issues which
warrant; (2) if an incumbent employee is to be assigned within DOE to activities
involving another agency and a polygraph examination is required as a condition of
access to the activities by the other agency; (3) if an incumbent employee is proposed
to be assigned or detailed to another agency and the receiving agency requests DOE
54 Ibid.
55 National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, The Polygraph and Lie
Detection, 2002, p. 6. NAS concluded in its report that, “... [the polygraph’s] accuracy in
distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient
to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies....”

---

CRS-12
to administer a polygraph examination as a condition of the assignment or detail; (4)
if an incumbent employee is selected for a random counterintelligence evaluation; (5)
or, if, an incumbent employee is required to take a specific-incident polygraph
examination.
Instituting “for-cause” based polygraph examinations will “significantly reduce”
the number of individuals who will undergo a polygraph examination, according to
DOE. Although the new rule does not provide an estimate of the number of
individuals who will be subject to such testing, it is estimated that less than 2,300
individuals will be tested annually.
Applicants for certain high-risk positions are designated as “covered persons”56
under the new rule and will be subject to a CI investigation. Incumbents of such
high-risk positions will be re-evaluated every five years. In both cases, the individual
may be polygraph-tested if any one of the five “for-cause” situations applies. If a
polygraph examination discloses “unresolved foreign nexus issues,” DOE may
further evaluate financial, credit, travel, and other relevant information to resolve the
issues.
DOE’s final rule also included a new provision requiring that recordings — both
video and audio — be made of each polygraph examination. Although DOE is not
required to establish a policy of releasing polygraph reports or videotapes of such
examinations, individuals will be entitled to file Freedom of Information requests to
obtain such material.
Aside from these modifications, the final rule included earlier proposed
provisions permitting random CI evaluations, including polygraph screening;
specific incident polygraph examinations; and the requirement that no adverse
decision on access to classified or sensitive information will be based only upon
polygraph results.
Issues for Congress
A More Focused Polygraph
One issue for Congress is whether the Energy Department’s polygraph screening
program should focus on a smaller number of individuals occupying only the most
sensitive positions. The DOE’s new rule attempts to address this issue by
56 The rule defines “covered persons” as those who occupy high-risk positions and includes
those: (1) employed by an intelligence or counterintelligence program office (or with
programmatic reporting responsibility to an intelligence or counterintelligence program
office) because of access to classified intelligence information, or sources, or methods; (2)
with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information; (3) with access to information that is
protected within a non-intelligence Special Access Program (SAP) designated by the
Secretary; (4) with regular and routine access to Top Secret Restricted Data; (5) with regular
and routine access to Top Secret National Security Information; and (6) designated, with
approval of the Secretary, on the basis of risk.

---

CRS-13
establishing a for-cause polygraph examination policy. U.S. Senator Pete Domenici
said that the Department’s rule “....is in the spirit of the National Academy of
Sciences [sic] recommendation, which is good. The test will be how the rule is
implemented, but I believe DOE is right to move toward the use of polygraphs as a
counter-intelligence tool rather than a widespread policy tool for screening
employees. I believe the new rule meets the new course Senate Bingaman and I
wanted in a new polygraph policy for the labs.”57
Additional Research
Critics and supporters alike agree that further research into the scientific basis
for psycho physiological detection of deception by any technique is warranted.58 The
NAS report suggested that if the government continues to rely heavily on the
polygraph, research should be conducted that might result in the development of a
firmer scientific foundation for the polygraph. NAS cautioned, however, that the
inherent ambiguity of the polygraph’s physiological measurements suggests that
investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only
modest improvements in accuracy.59 Rather than further research into the polygraph,
NAS recommended that more broadly-based research be undertaken with regard to
detecting and deterring security threats.60 NAS suggested that alternative techniques,
such as measurements from brain activity and other physiological indicators, facial
expressions, voice quality, and other aspects of demeanor show some promise, it
cautioned that “none [of these techniques] has yet been shown to outperform the
polygraph. None shows any promise of supplanting the polygraph for screening
purposes in the near term.”61 NAS recommended that any such research program
should be largely administered by “an organization or organizations with no
operational responsibility for detecting deception and no institutional commitment
to using or training practitioners of a particular technique.”62
57 See “Domenici Statement on New DOE Polygraph Rule,” Oct. 10, 2006. Sen. Domenici
authored, and Sen. Jeff Bingaman cosponsored the legislation requiring that a new DOE
polygraph program be instituted based on the National Academy Sciences Polygraph
Review. The provision was included in the FY2002 Defense Authorization Bill.
58 It perhaps is interesting to note that the Department of Defense, employing the term —
“Credibility Assessment” — has adopted as part of a revised polygraph program non-
polygraph techniques for detecting deception. According to the Pentagon, the term
credibility assessment refers to “the multi-disciplinary field of existing as well as potential
techniques and procedures to assess truthfulness that relies on physiological reactions and
behavioral measures to test the agreement between an individual’s memories and
statements.” See Department of Defense Directive Number 5210.48, Jan. 25, 2007.
59 See the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, The Polygraph
and Lie Detection, 2002, p. 213.
60 Ibid., p. 9.
61 See the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, The Polygraph
and Lie Detection, 2002, p. 8.
62 Ibid., p. 229.

---

CRS-14
NAS high-lighted two areas it believed to be worthy of additional research —
computerized analysis of polygraph records, which could improve the accuracy of
test results by using more information from polygraph records than is used in
traditional scoring methods; and combining polygraph information with information
from other screening techniques. NAS also concluded that more research of
countermeasures is needed, but suggested that policy makers carefully weigh the
danger of public knowledge of countermeasures against the benefits of a robust
public research program.63
While claiming that the polygraph provides satisfactory detection and
deterrence, polygraph supporters still favor additional research on grounds that such
efforts could lead to improvements in the polygraph’s validity and reliability.64
Supporters caution, however, that the principle obstacle to assessing the polygraph’s
validity and reliability remains the difficulty in replicating real world conditions in
a mock crime or laboratory environment. They further assert that the lack of
resources also has hindered any such research efforts.
Congress addressed NAS’s recommendation for additional research in 2003
when it included funds for polygraph research in the FY2004 Intelligence
Authorization Act.65 The act provided National Science Foundation and the Office
of Science and Technology Policy $500,000 to study alternatives to the polygraph.
Discard Use Of Polygraph For Screening
Another issue for Congress is whether to discontinue polygraph screening
altogether. Critics characterize polygraph screening as misguided and suggest that
it be replaced by a more thorough examination of financial records and travel, and
more frequent reinvestigation by traditional means. They further argue that the
screening polygraph gives authorities a dangerously false sense of over confidence
that they have adequately screened for spies.66 Such misplaced confidence could lead
authorities to relax efforts to obtain CI information through other channels, such as
periodic security re-investigations and a close monitoring of security violations in
certain government facilities.67 Finally, critics caution that notwithstanding the
accuracy of polygraphs, they can be defeated through certain countermeasures.68
63 Ibid., p. 231.
64 American Polygraph Association, Statement of the American Polygraph Association
Pertaining to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Report on the Use of the Polygraph,
undated.
65 P.L. 108-177, Sec. 375.
66 See comments by the Society of Professional Scientists and Engineers to proposed
polygraph examination regulations, 10 CFR Pat, 709, Federal Register 68, p. 17886, Apr.
14, 2003.
67 National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, The Polygraph and Lie
Detection, 2002, p. 7
68 Ibid., p. 5.

---

CRS-15
Supporters counter that the polygraph is still the best tool available to detect
deception, and that it remains an important counterintelligence tool. Some
supporters distinguish between the polygraph’s utility and its scientific validity and
reliability. While its accuracy may be questionable, the polygraph has significant
utility when deployed as part of a comprehensive CI program, according to
supporters, who emphasize that the polygraph is just one tool among several used in
any such comprehensive program.69 Finally, some government organizations have
claimed that certain classified research supports their confidence in the polygraph.70

69 U.S. Congress, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Report of the
Redmond Panel, June 21, 2000, pp. 7-8.
70 Office of Technology Assessment, Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing, Nov. 1983,
p. 100. OTA said the CIA did not permit it to review the Agency’s classified research on
the subject.

---