Combating Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Sixth, we must prepare for the threat or use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.This will require a broad effort at all levels, involving federal agencies and state and localgovernments. It will require new working relationships among the defense, intelligence,law-enforcement, and public health communities, including integrated training of federal,state, and local authorities; active duty and reserve military forces; National Guard units;and police, fire, and medical officials.Seventh, we need to marshal resources for the fight against proliferation and to managebudgets for combating proliferation more efficiently.Eighth, we must engage our allies—and potential proliferators—more effectively incurtailing countries’ desires for nuclear, chemical, or biological programs; preventing theiracquisition of critical WMD-related technology; and preparing to respond to deployment ofweapons of mass destruction.The Commission defines the scope of combating proliferation as policies,plans, programs, and operations that:• Prevent or impede the acquisition or use of weapons of massdestruction and their means of delivery• Roll back or effectively address proliferation when it occurs• Respond if weapons of mass destruction are threatened or usedagainst us at home or abroadThe Role of CongressNone of these efforts will succeed without the energetic and informed involvementof Congress. The legislative and executive branches must achieve greater cooperation inaddressing this grave national security threat. A lack of consensus on methods hasundermined the consistency of U.S. proliferation policy through several presidentialadministrations and Congresses.Over the last several years, regardless of which party controlled the White House orCongress, there has been a tension at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue over how to dealwith proliferation. Congress has tended to perceive the executive branch as insufficientlycommitted to combating proliferation because it seemed to subordinate proliferation-relatedgoals to other bilateral or multilateral objectives. The executive branch, on the other hand, hascomplained that Congress insists on using blunt instruments to combat proliferation andgenerally relies too heavily on punitive measures, downplaying the value of good bilateral6