Counterintelligence Reform at the Department of Energy: Policy Issues and Organizational Alternatives

Publication Date: March 2005

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area:

Type:

Abstract:

Troubled by reported lapses in security and counterintelligence (CI) at the Department of Energy (DOE), the Congress in 1999 established a semi-autonomous agency -- the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) -- to oversee DOE's national security-related programs (P.L. 106-65). Within NNSA, Congress created the Office of Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence to implement CI policy at NNSA facilities. DOE retained a separate Office of Counterintelligence, which develops CI policy for DOE and NNSA, but, implements it only at non-NNSA facilities. Though representing separate organizations, the two CI offices share resources and personnel for some programs. Although DOE has taken steps to strengthen CI practices, some observers have questioned whether the Department's bifurcated CI structure is the most effective in countering continuing efforts by foreign intelligence services, friendly and hostile, to target DOE and NNSA facilities.

Several organizational approaches have been discussed, including the following.

One approach is to maintain the status quo. Proponents suggest that the current structure is necessary if CI is to receive the attention it warrants. Opponents counter that dual offices lead to inefficiencies that could undermine CI effectiveness.

Under a second approach, DOE and NNSA CI programs could be completely separated. Proponents suggest that this approach would establish clearer lines of authority. Opponents counter that this arrangement would produce chaos at the field level and lead to coordination and communication problems.

A third approach would be to give NNSA authority to implement all CI programming, while preserving for DOE all CI policymaking responsibility. Proponents suggest that doing so would result in integrated and coordinated CI operational activity. Opponents counter that this approach still would leave in place two separate CI offices and lead to continuing confusion over roles and mission.

Finally, Congress could consolidate the two CI programs, either under the direct control of the Energy Secretary, or under the supervision of the NNSA administrator. Proponents of DOE control assert that the importance of CI argues for a consolidated office that answers directly to the DOE Secretary. Opponents contend consolidation within DOE would contravene Congress's intent to maximize NNSA autonomy in all areas, including CI, because of DOE's perceived deeply rooted anti-security culture. They recommend that all CI programs be consolidated, but under the NNSA Administrator rather than the Energy Secretary.

Former DOE Secretary Spencer Abraham proposed consolidating the two CI programs into a single office reporting directly to the Energy Secretary. Congress, however, continues to support the bifurcated program. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman is reviewing various legislative proposals, including one that would consolidate the two CI programs under DOE control. This report will be updated as warranted.