{"id":2807,"date":"2000-10-14T13:00:25","date_gmt":"2000-10-14T18:00:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=2807"},"modified":"2021-02-21T08:03:05","modified_gmt":"2021-02-21T13:03:05","slug":"energy-department-polygraph-program-expanded","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2000\/10\/14\/energy-department-polygraph-program-expanded\/","title":{"rendered":"&#8220;Energy Department Polygraph Program Expanded&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"entry\">\n\n\n<p>Walter Pincus of the <em>Washington Post<\/em> reports:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>Rejecting pleas from Energy Department officials, Congress has approved a provision that will require polygraphs for 5,000 additional employees of the department&#8217;s nuclear weapons complex, raising to near 20,000 the overall number that will be tested.<\/p><p>The new language, part of the fiscal 2001 defense authorization bill that Congress passed Thursday night, requires the department to polygraph all employees with access to &#8220;sensitive compartmented information&#8221; (SCI)&#8211;highly classified intelligence data, produced under supervision of the CIA, that include data from electronic intercepts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>(<a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/archive\/politics\/2000\/10\/14\/energy-dept-polygraph-program-expanded\/fa7d3b85-8f1d-45e2-91b2-6342f898e021\/\">read full story <\/a>on washingtonpost.com)<\/p>\n\n\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Walter Pincus of the Washington Post reports: Rejecting pleas from Energy Department officials, Congress has approved a provision that will require polygraphs for 5,000 additional employees of the department&#8217;s nuclear weapons complex, raising to near 20,000 the overall number that will be tested. The new language, part of the fiscal 2001 defense authorization bill that &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[287,70],"class_list":{"0":"post-2807","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polygraph","7":"tag-doe","8":"tag-polygraph-screening","9":"anons"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2807","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2807"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2807\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3256,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2807\/revisions\/3256"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2807"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2807"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2807"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}