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

Publication Date: April 2006

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Energy

Type:

Abstract:

Concerned by reported security and counterintelligence (CI) lapses at the Department of Energy (DOE), Congress in 1999 established a semi-autonomous agency -- the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) -- to oversee DOE's national security-related programs. Within NNSA, Congress established the Office of Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence to implement NNSA's counterintelligence program. Although DOE's existing Office of Counterintelligence develops CI policy for both agencies, it implements policy only at non-NNSA facilities. Some studies have questioned the effectiveness of a dual office structure in combating foreign espionage and have urged the adoption of an alternative structure. Several alternative organizational approaches have been discussed, including the following.

One approach, reportedly approved but not yet initiated, would merge under the control of a new DOE intelligence agency DOE's Office of Intelligence, which assesses foreign nuclear weapons programs, and DOE's CI office. As part of an anticipated second phase, NNSA's CI office would be consolidated under the DOE's intelligence agency. Proponents assert that such a consolidation would improve command, control, and communication. Opponents argue that consolidation would dilute the counterintelligence attention DOE's weapons labs now receive.

Under a second approach, the DOE and NNSA CI programs could be consolidated under the control of the NNSA administrator. Proponents argue that a semi-autonomous agency such as NNSA, by virtue of its independence, is better able to implement CI measures than is DOE. Opponents contend that such a consolidation would undermine the effectiveness of a counterintelligence program, which they argue requires a consolidated DOE-wide program that includes NNSA and is under the direct control and supervision of the Energy Secretary.

Under a third approach, DOE could integrate its Office of Intelligence and CI office under a new DOE intelligence agency, but allow NNSA's CI office to remain as a separate entity. Proponents argue that such an approach would not eliminate the current bifurcated structure -- a preferred outcome -- but would enhance overall communication and coordination between the two existing programs. Opponents counter that only way to resolve coordination and communication problems is to consolidate the two CI programs within DOE.

A fourth approach would be to completely separate the DOE and NNSA counterintelligence programs. Proponents suggest that such an approach would clarify the chain of command. Opponents assert that separation could further undermine coordination and communication.

A final approach would be to maintain the status quo. Proponents suggest that the current structure is required for counterintelligence to receive focused attention at the weapons labs. Opponents counter that dual offices are inefficient and ultimately ineffective. This report will be updated as warranted.