In February 1998, President Clinton issued a decision directive (PDD-61) instructing DOE to implement 13 reforms, the balance of which was geared to strengthening the Department's CI program. Designated the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), NNSA was placed in charge of all DOE national security-related nuclear programs. DOE had continued to complain that the structure impeded the smoother functioning of the Department's security operations. Despite any initial skepticism over the consolidation of the two offices, the Senate pronounced that the outcome had been successful and, in its version of the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act, adopted language that would eliminate the sunset provision and permanently consolidate the two counterintelligence offices into a single office within DOE. This, critics suggest, has come at the expense of CI capabilities. DOE Implements Internal Consolidation, Combining Offices of Intelligence and Counterintelligence

In 2006, the same year Congress agreed to consolidate the DOE and NNSA counterintelligence offices, DOE decided to combine its Offices of Intelligence and Counterintelligence under a new Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence. Specifically, proponents contend a more integrated FI/CI structure will make it easier for the Department's Senior Intelligence Officer to foster cooperation between the two disciplines and to develop and implement a CI program that is both more synergistic and strategic in approach. If organizational changes are sought, policymakers might consider several questions. 109 - 364 and not reestablish NNSA's CI office in 2010; retain DOE's FI/CI consolidated program; (2) maintain the 2010 sunset provision and reestablish NNSA's CI office, but as an office independent of DOE, dropping the previously existing bifurcated CI structure; retain DOE's FI/CI consolidated program; (3) eliminate both the 2010 sunset provision and DOE's FI/CI consolidated program, reestablishing independent FI and CI offices within DOE; (4) maintain the 2010 sunset provision and reestablish NNSA's CI office, but consolidate within that office DOE's CI directorate; retain DOE's FI/CI consolidated program; (5) maintain the 2010 sunset provision and reestablish NNSA's CI on a bifurcated basis under which NNSA and DOE would share certain CI resources; eliminate DOE's FI/CI consolidated program and reestablish independent FI and CI offices within DOE; and (6) place the FBI in charge of DOE CI. Possible Oversight Alternatives

The Congress also could consider adopting one or more of several oversight alternatives. Alternative Two: Commission a Formal Assessment of FI/CI Consolidation

A second approach would be for Congress to commission an assessment of any benefits that have been derived from the DOE FI/CI consolidation. Some have questioned whether the consolidation is consistent with current law, suggesting that consolidation amounted to a "transfer of function" from the Office of Counterintelligence or the Office of Intelligence to a new layer of bureaucracy within the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence.
After the repeated urging of the Department of Energy (DOE), Congress in 2006 agreed to temporarily consolidate separate counterintelligence (CI) offices at the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) into a single CI office under DOE control. The Senate version of the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Bill contains language that would make the consolidation permanent. DOE had complained that the dual office structure was ineffective. In permitting DOE to consolidate the two offices, Congress reversed its 1999 authorization to establish a separate NNSA CI office—a decision that at the time was prompted by congressional concerns over repeated departmental security and counterintelligence lapses.
At the same time, in 2006, DOE combined its separate Offices of Intelligence, and Counterintelligence into a new DOE office called the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence. The Department reasoned that combining the disciplines of counterintelligence and foreign intelligence under one integrated office would foster synergistic cooperation that would lead to a more strategic and ultimately more effective counterintelligence program.
This report analyzes both consolidations—the first authorized by Congress at DOE's request; the second initiated by DOE—and examines the impact of each on the effectiveness of the Department's CI program. A major oversight issue for Congress is whether either, or both, organizational changes will strengthen the Department's CI program as intended. Some observers are concerned that the two consolidations may have undercut CI capabilities.
Congress could maintain the status quo or choose from several alternative organizational approaches, some of which continue to be discussed despite the most recent organizational changes to the Department's CI program. Such alternatives range from maintaining the consolidated DOE/NNSA CI office but reversing DOE's decision to combine its formerly independent offices of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence, to eliminating both consolidations.
Congress also could exercise several oversight options, ranging from conducting classified CI briefings to commissioning a formal assessment of DOE's current CI reorganization.