Congressional Oversight Manual, and More from CRS
The purposes, authorities, and instruments of congressional oversight are described in detail in a newly-expanded Congressional Oversight Manual (pdf) prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
“Congressional oversight and investigations can often, though not always, become adversarial,” the CRS Manual observes. “This is especially true when the entity being targeted, whether a private individual, corporation, or executive branch agency, has information Congress believes is necessary to its inquiry but refuses to disclose. In those situations the targeted entity may attempt to use several methods of avoiding disclosure. A commonly used tactic to avoid disclosure is to assert that the information cannot be disclosed due to a specific law, rule, or executive decision. Another common tactic is to assert that the information itself is of such a sensitive nature that Congress is not among those entities entitled or authorized to have the information.”
The Manual proceeds to scrutinize the validity of such tactics, and discusses the options available to Congress to compel disclosure. A copy was obtained by Secrecy News. See Congressional Oversight Manual, Congressional Research Service, 168 pages, January 6, 2011.
Other noteworthy new CRS reports include the following (both pdf).
National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: A Glimpse of the Legal Background and Recent Amendments, December 27, 2010.
Ricin: Technical Background and Potential Role in Terrorism, December 21, 2010.
After months of delay, the council tasked by President Trump to review the FEMA released its final report. Our disaster policy nerds have thoughts.
FAS and FLI partnered to build a series of convenings and reports across the intersections of artificial intelligence (AI) with biosecurity, cybersecurity, nuclear command and control, military integration, and frontier AI governance. This project brought together leaders across these areas and created a space that was rigorous, transpartisan, and solutions-oriented to approach how we should think about how AI is rapidly changing global risks.
Investment should instead be directed at sectors where American technology and innovation exist but the infrastructure to commercialize them domestically does not—and where the national security case is clear.
AI is already consequential, but its future trajectory remains contested. Policymakers should make their assumptions explicit, focus on what can be shaped rather than what can be perfectly predicted, and build institutions that can learn and respond as evidence changes.