Report: Feds Sharing Less Info on Hotspot WMDs With Congress

None

Debris from a long-range ballistic missile fired by North Korea in December 2012 is displayed at a naval base of South Korea's Second Fleet Command. The U.S. government has decreased how much unclassified information it publishes on weapons of mass destruction-related concerns, a congressional report says.
National Journal
Rachel Oswald
April 22, 2014, 10:11 a.m.

The U.S. gov­ern­ment lately is shar­ing less in­form­a­tion with Con­gress about weapons-of-mass-de­struc­tion pro­lif­er­a­tion con­cerns, a new Cap­it­ol Hill study finds.

“The num­ber of un­clas­si­fied re­ports to Con­gress on WMD-re­lated is­sues has de­creased con­sid­er­ably in re­cent years,” con­cludes an April 16 re­port by the Con­gres­sion­al Re­search Ser­vice, the in­tern­al re­search arm of the le­gis­lat­ive branch.

Con­gress re­quires that the gov­ern­ment re­port on the nuc­le­ar and mis­sile pro­grams of Ir­an, North Korea and Syr­ia. Mem­bers of se­lect House and Sen­ate pan­els — such as the in­tel­li­gence and armed-ser­vices com­mit­tees, as well as the ap­pro­pri­ations sub­pan­els on de­fense — have ac­cess to some clas­si­fied find­ings on weapons of mass de­struc­tion-re­lated top­ics.

Law­makers not on those pan­els can re­quest closed-door brief­ings from ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials on spe­cif­ic con­cerns, ac­cord­ing to Steven Af­ter­good, who dir­ects the Fed­er­a­tion of Amer­ic­an Sci­ent­ists’ Pro­ject on Gov­ern­ment Secrecy.

But Con­gress ac­tu­ally has moved to re­duce re­port­ing re­quire­ments on un­con­ven­tion­al weapon con­cerns, ac­cord­ing to the CRS re­port. Un­der the fisc­al 2013 In­tel­li­gence Au­thor­iz­a­tion Act, a man­date for the in­tel­li­gence com­munity to provide a yearly un­clas­si­fied re­port on the “Ac­quis­i­tion of Tech­no­logy Re­lat­ing to Weapons of Mass De­struc­tion and Ad­vanced Con­ven­tion­al Mu­ni­tions” was lif­ted.

The re­port did not of­fer spe­cif­ics on the num­ber of clas­si­fied and un­clas­si­fied re­ports and brief­ings giv­en to Con­gress over the years.

“There is an an­nu­al threat brief­ing from the [dir­ect­or of Na­tion­al In­tel­li­gence] be­fore the House and Sen­ate in­tel­li­gence com­mit­tees, but if you look for oth­er open hear­ings on the sub­ject, they’re not there,” Af­ter­good said. “There used to be more.”

The long­time trans­par­ency ad­voc­ate said that in the past, there were also more “ques­tions for the re­cord” — writ­ten in­quir­ies by law­makers that drew of­fi­cials’ re­sponses — view­able by the pub­lic.

“Those also seem to have van­ished,” Af­ter­good said. “So there is just less out there and the pub­lic has less in­form­a­tion at its dis­pos­al.”

John Isaacs, ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the Cen­ter for Arms Con­trol and Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion, said law­makers’ ac­cess to of­fi­cial as­sess­ments on WMD mat­ters could help them make in­formed de­cisions in votes on pro­lif­er­a­tion-re­lated is­sues, such as sanc­tions bills, mil­it­ary- and in­tel­li­gence-spend­ing pro­pos­als, and an­nu­al de­fense-au­thor­iz­a­tion le­gis­la­tion.

Still, Isaacs said provid­ing law­makers with more in­form­a­tion would of­fer no guar­an­tee they would make reasoned vot­ing de­cisions.

“Con­gress should get more facts [about weapons of mass de­struc­tion], but that wouldn’t ne­ces­sar­ily say much,” he said. “Mem­bers of Con­gress with or without com­plete in­form­a­tion … tend to vote on ideo­logy and not facts.”

For Af­ter­good, the is­sue is also a mat­ter of pub­lic aware­ness about pro­lif­er­a­tion, an is­sue he says has “a re­duced pro­file” due to the de­crease in un­clas­si­fied re­ports and hear­ings.

The CRS re­port sug­gests that Con­gress “con­sider re­quir­ing ad­di­tion­al re­port­ing from the ex­ec­ut­ive branch on WMD pro­lif­er­a­tion.”

“Con­gress has it in its power to change the situ­ation,” Af­ter­good said. “They can say, as they did in the past, we want an un­clas­si­fied [hear­ing and re­port]. It’s a de­cision that’s in their hands.”

What We're Following See More »
A DARK CLOUD OVER TRUMP?
Snowstorm Could Impact Primary Turnout
2 days ago
THE LATEST

A snowstorm is supposed to hit New Hampshire today and “linger into Primary Tuesday.” GOP consultant Ron Kaufman said lower turnout should help candidates who have spent a lot of time in the state tending to retail politicking. Donald Trump “has acknowledged that he needs to step up his ground-game, and a heavy snowfall could depress his figures relative to more organized candidates.”

Source:
IN CASE OF EMERGENCY
A Shake-Up in the Offing in the Clinton Camp?
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

Anticipating a primary loss in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Hillary and Bill Clinton “are considering staffing and strategy changes” to their campaign. Sources tell Politico that the Clintons are likely to layer over top officials with experienced talent, rather than fire their staff en masse.

Source:
THE LAST ROUND OF NEW HAMPSHIRE POLLS
Trump Is Still Ahead, but Who’s in Second?
1 days ago
THE LATEST

We may not be talking about New Hampshire primary polls for another three-and-a-half years, so here goes:

  • American Research Group’s tracking poll has Donald Trump in the lead with 30% support, followed by Marco Rubio and John Kasich tying for second place at 16%. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton 53%-41%.
  • The 7 News/UMass Lowell tracking poll has Trump way out front with 34%, followed by Rubio and Ted Cruz with 13% apiece. Among the Democrats, Sanders is in front 56%-40%.
  • A Gravis poll puts Trump ahead with 28%, followed by Kasich with 17% and Rubio with 15%.
IT’S ALL ABOUT SECOND PLACE
CNN Calls the Primary for Sanders and Trump
19 hours ago
THE LATEST

Well that didn’t take long. CNN has already declared Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump the winners of the New Hampshire primary, leaving the rest of the candidates to fight for the scraps. Five minutes later, the Associated Press echoed CNN’s call.

Source:
×