Hi George
You may remember that I called this months ago and told you the number of polygraphs required in the DOE system will be reduced not eliminated.  This may irritate you but I will draw you to an important excerpt from McSlarrow's testimony:

"Federal agencies deploying the counterintelligence scope polygraph as a screening tool for initial hiring or initial access   have detected applicants for classified positions within those agencies who were directed by foreign governments or entities to seek employment with the agencies in order to gain successful penetrations within the various U.S. Government components.
U.S. agencies have also benefited from the utilization of the polygraph screen as part of periodic security evaluations and re-investigations of federal employees and contractor personnel.   Such examinations have resulted in multiple admissions in several different areas:

 Knowingly providing classified information to members of foreign intelligence services.
 Involvement in various stages of recruitment efforts by foreign intelligence services.
 Prior unreported contacts with known foreign intelligence officers.
 Efforts by employees to make clandestine contact with foreign diplomatic establishments or foreign intelligence officers.
 Serious contemplation or plans to commit acts of espionage.
 Knowingly providing classified information to foreign nationals and uncleared U.S. persons.

As a result of admissions and subsequent investigations, federal agencies have disrupted on-going clandestine relationships between employees/contractors and foreign intelligence officers, and stopped others in their beginning phases, or even before the clandestine relationships began.

If this were the end of the inquiry, it would be a relatively straightforward matter.  The probability would be that use of the polygraph screen as one tool for counterintelligence would have a value that demanded its use in the context of access to information the protection of which is critical to our national security, even taking into account questions of employee morale and the resources necessary to sustain such a program.  The value of its use in specific-incident investigations would be presumably greater still".

The often repeated assertions made on this site have been directly challenged by this government official.  I am not surprised that you and Orolan (who was recently been taken to task for being superficial in his research) have ignored this, and are selectively reporting his remarks.  I could do it, but why dont you post his testimony in total?
Is it possible that the government has access to information not originating in the fertile minds of antipolygraph activists, or disgruntled job seekers?