This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-157 
entitled 'Weapons of Mass Destruction: Nonproliferation Programs Need 
Better Integration' which was released on January 28, 2005.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Congressional Committees: 

January 2005: 

Weapons of Mass Destruction: 

Nonproliferation Programs Need Better Integration: 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-157]: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-05-157, a report to the Committee on Armed Services, 
U.S. Senate, and the Committee on Armed Services, House of 
Representatives: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Since 1992, the Congress has provided more than $7 billion for threat 
reduction and nonproliferation programs in the former Soviet Union 
(FSU). These programs have played a key role in addressing the threats 
of weapons of mass destruction and are currently expanding beyond the 
FSU. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 
mandated that GAO assess (1) Department of Defense (DOD) and Department 
of Energy (DOE) strategies guiding their threat reduction and 
nonproliferation programs and (2) efforts to coordinate DOD, DOE, and 
Department of State threat reduc-tion and nonproliferation programs 
that share similar missions.

What GAO Found: 

GAO found that there is no overall strategy that integrates the threat 
reduction and nonproliferation programs of the DOD, DOE, and others. 
DOD and DOE have strategies governing their respective programs, which 
generally contain the elements of a strategy as established by the 
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. These strategies 
include a mission statement and goals, identify external factors that 
could affect meeting these goals, establish metrics to evaluate the 
performance of the programs, provide cost estimates, and cover a period 
of at least 5 years. Given the involvement of multiple agencies, and 
the expansion of the threat reduction and nonproliferation programs 
beyond the FSU, integration of agenciesí strategies is important. 

The agenciesí implementation of very similar programs has not always 
been well coordinated. While the majority of programs in DOD and DOE 
are distinct, GAO found three program areas that perform similar 
functions in the FSU. GAO found that the coordination of programs 
enhancing security at Russian nuclear warhead sites improved after the 
National Security Council (NSC) staff issued guidance. Specifically, 
the guidance delineates agenciesí roles, interactions, and ways to 
resolve disputes. The biological weapons scientist employment programs 
in DOD, DOE, and State are well coordinated and also have NSC staff 
guidance addressing roles, interactions, and disputes. By contrast, 
there is no governmentwide guidance delineating the roles and 
responsibilities of agencies managing border security programs. 
According to DOD and DOE officials managing these programs, agenciesí 
roles are not well delineated and coordination could be improved.

DOD and DOE Threat Reduction and Nonproliferation Program Areas: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends (1) that the Secretaries of Defense and Energy develop 
an integrated plan for all U.S. threat reduction and nonproliferation 
programs and (2) that the Assistant to the President for National 
Security Affairs issue clear guidance for the coordination of border 
security programs. DOE agreed with the recommendations, while State and 
the NSC staff did not comment. DOD concurred with the need for better 
integrated nonproliferation programs, but did not specify whether it 
agreed with the need for an integrated plan. DOD concurred with the 
need for guidance governing border security programs.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-157.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Joseph A. Christoff, 
(202) 512-8979 or christoffj@gao.gov; or Gene Aloise, (202) 512-3841 or 
aloisee@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

DOD and DOE Strategic Plans for Threat Reduction and Nonproliferation 
Programs Are Not Integrated and Do Not Address U.S. Programs Worldwide: 

NSC Staff Guidance Delineating Agencies' Roles, Information Sharing, 
and Dispute Resolution Results in Improved Program Coordination: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Scope and Methodology: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: DOD and DOE Threat Reduction and Nonproliferation Projects, 
Fiscal Year 2004: 

Appendix II: DOD and DOE Metrics Used to Assess the Performance of 
Threat Reduction and Nonproliferation Programs: 

Appendix III: DOD, DOE, and State Department Projects Addressing 
Similar Missions: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Selected GPRA Criteria for Strategic Planning: 

Table 2: Calls for Governmentwide Plans for Threat Reduction and 
Nonproliferation Programs: 

Table 3: Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Projects: 

Table 4: Department of Energy Nonproliferation Projects within Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation: 

Table 5: DOD and DOE Performance Metrics: 

Table 6: DOD and DOE Warhead Security Projects: 

Table 7: DOD, DOE, and State Biological Weapons Scientist Employment 
Projects: 

Table 8: Overview of Border Security Projects: 

Figures Figures: 

Figure 1: DOD Offices That Are Involved in Strategic Planning for the 
CTR Program: 

Figure 2: DOE Offices That Are Involved in Strategic Planning for 
Nonproliferation Programs: 

Figure 3: DOD and DOE Threat Reduction and Nonproliferation Program 
Areas: 

Abbreviations: 

CTR: Cooperative Threat Reduction: 

DNN: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DOE: Department of Energy: 

DTRA: Defense Threat Reduction Agency:: 

FSU: former Soviet Union: 

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993: 

NNSA: National Nuclear Security Administration: 

NSC: National Security Council: 

WMD: weapons of mass destruction: 

Letter January 28, 2005: 

The Honorable John Warner: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Carl Levin: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Ike Skelton: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
House of Representatives: 

Since 1992, the Congress has provided more than $7 billion for threat 
reduction and nonproliferation programs in the former Soviet Union 
(FSU). These programs encompass a range of projects, including removing 
nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan; securing nuclear 
materials and warheads in Russia; and paying former weapons of mass 
destruction (WMD) scientists to engage in peaceful research. The 
National Security Council (NSC) staff has the principal role in 
coordinating the many U.S. threat reduction and nonproliferation 
programs that are implemented primarily through the Departments of 
Defense (DOD) and Energy (DOE), although the Departments of State, 
Commerce, and Homeland Security implement related programs. DOD and DOE 
threat reduction and nonproliferation programs have played a key role 
in addressing the threats posed by WMD in the FSU; these efforts have 
expanded in size and scope beyond the FSU states. For example, the 
United States recently provided assistance to dismantle WMD 
infrastructure in Libya, and DOE recently announced a new program to 
provide employment opportunities for Iraqi weapons scientists. 
Furthermore, in November 2003, the Congress authorized DOD to allow the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program to spend up to $50 million 
annually of its existing funding to address proliferation threats 
outside the FSU. A bill pending in the Senate would allow DOD increased 
flexibility to undertake nonproliferation projects outside of the 
FSU.[Footnote 1]

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004[Footnote 2] 
mandated that we assess the current management of DOD and DOE threat 
reduction and nonproliferation programs. We agreed to approach this 
assessment in two phases. First, this report assesses (1) DOD and DOE 
strategies guiding their respective threat reduction and 
nonproliferation programs and how they are integrated with those of 
other agencies and (2) efforts to coordinate the implementation of DOD, 
DOE, and State threat reduction and nonproliferation programs that 
share similar missions, goals, and activities. We included State in 
assessing the coordination of threat reduction and nonproliferation 
programs because it shares responsibility in coordinating two programs. 
In the second phase, we plan to issue individual reports on DOD and DOE 
internal controls for their threat reduction and nonproliferation 
programs. A list of our prior reports concerning DOD and DOE threat 
reduction and nonproliferation programs is included at the end of this 
report.

To assess DOD and DOE strategies guiding their respective threat 
reduction and nonproliferation programs, we assessed the agencies' 
strategic plans against criteria established by the Government 
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). We also relied on our 
previous reviews of the CTR program in DOD and nonproliferation 
programs in DOE. Furthermore, we met with officials at DOD, DOE, and 
State and reviewed documents to determine if a plan exists that 
integrates the implementation strategies of DOD, DOE, and other 
agencies. To assess efforts to coordinate DOD, DOE, and State threat 
reduction and nonproliferation programs, we reviewed agency documents 
and interviewed agency officials. DOD officials included the Deputy 
Undersecretary of Defense for Technology Security Policy and 
Counterproliferation and other senior leaders. DOE officials included 
the Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation and other 
senior leaders. We spoke with State Department officials in the Office 
of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and Eurasia and the 
Bureau of Nonproliferation. Although NSC officials did not respond to 
our requests to meet, we were able to meet our audit objectives by 
obtaining records and having discussions with DOD, DOE, and State 
officials regarding the role of the NSC staff and the extent of its 
participation in coordinating programs. Additionally, we provided a 
draft of this report to NSC staff to obtain their comments. We 
performed our review in Washington, D.C., from February 2004 to 
November 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards.

Results in Brief: 

While both DOD and DOE have individual strategies governing their 
respective threat reduction and nonproliferation programs, there is no 
overall strategy that integrates these plans with one another, or with 
those of other agencies. DOD and DOE individual strategies generally 
contain the elements of a plan developed using GPRA criteria. These 
strategies include a mission statement and goals, identify external 
factors that could affect meeting these goals, establish metrics to 
evaluate the performance of the programs, provide cost estimates, and 
cover a period of at least 5 years. In 2004, DOD and DOE implemented 39 
threat reduction and nonproliferation projects costing approximately 
$1.8 billion. While it is important and valuable for DOD and DOE to 
have strategies to guide their respective programs, the expansion of 
these programs beyond the FSU and the involvement of multiple agencies 
make integration of all agencies' strategies important. Since the mid-
1990s, the Congress, GAO, and others[Footnote 3] have called for the 
executive branch to develop governmentwide plans to coordinate U.S. 
threat reduction and nonproliferation programs worldwide. The NSC staff 
and State have prepared plans in response to these calls, but these 
plans either focus solely on one agency or on one geographic location. 
Therefore, these plans do not address U.S. threat reduction and 
nonproliferation programs worldwide.

The agencies' implementation of similar threat reduction and 
nonproliferation programs has not always been well coordinated. 
Coordination requires a delineation of each agency's roles and 
responsibilities, regularized interactions, and clear procedures for 
resolving interagency disputes. While the majority of programs in DOD 
and DOE have distinct missions, we identified one area where DOD and 
DOE programs share similar missions, goals, and activities and two 
areas shared by DOD, DOE, and State. Both DOD and DOE have programs to 
improve the security of sites where Russian nuclear warheads are 
stored. Warhead security programs experienced coordination problems in 
the past because DOD and DOE were pursuing different approaches to 
securing nuclear warhead sites in Russia.[Footnote 4] On the basis of 
our review of NSC staff guidance and discussions with programs 
officials, coordination improved when guidance specified agencies' 
roles, interactions, and ways to resolve disputes. DOD, DOE, and State 
have programs employing former biological weapons scientists and 
enhancing the ability of countries to secure their borders against the 
smuggling of WMD materials. The biological weapons scientist employment 
programs in DOD, DOE, and State are well coordinated and have NSC staff 
guidance addressing roles, interactions, and disputes. Furthermore, 
DOD, DOE, and State Department officials were satisfied with the 
coordination of these programs. However, coordination of DOD, DOE, and 
State border security programs could be improved. DOD and DOE officials 
managing border security programs stated that agencies' roles are not 
defined, information sharing is infrequent, and there are no procedures 
to resolve differences among agencies.

We are recommending (1) that the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, in 
consultation with other agencies that manage threat reduction and 
nonproliferation programs, develop an integrated plan for all U.S. 
threat reduction and nonproliferation programs to ensure that the 
programs are effectively coordinated and (2) that the Assistant to the 
President for National Security Affairs, through the NSC staff, issue 
clear guidance for the coordination of DOD, DOE, and State Department 
border security programs, as it has done with programs to employ former 
biological weapons scientists and warhead security.

DOE agreed with the recommendations in this report, while State and the 
NSC staff did not comment on them. DOD concurred with the need for 
better integrated threat reduction and nonproliferation programs, but 
did not specify whether it agreed with the need for an integrated plan. 
DOD concurred with the recommendation for NSC staff guidance governing 
border security programs. DOD, DOE, and State provided technical 
comments that we incorporated as appropriate.

Background: 

After the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia inherited the 
world's largest arsenal of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. 
As Russia adopted economic reforms and moved toward an open society, 
its economy and central controls deteriorated, thereby making it 
difficult to maintain security at its weapons sites. Recognizing these 
difficulties, the Congress began authorizing funds in 1992 for programs 
to help destroy Russian weapons and improve WMD security. More 
recently, the events of September 11, 2001, have increased U.S. 
concerns that terrorists might obtain WMD materials or weapons at 
poorly secured sites. While DOD and DOE implement most of the U.S. 
threat reduction and nonproliferation programs, the Departments of 
State, Commerce, and Homeland Security implement related programs.

The Congress established DOD's CTR program in 1992 to reduce the WMD 
threat posed to the United States from weapons remaining in the FSU. 
The program was designed to assist the FSU in securing and destroying 
WMD and its means of delivery.[Footnote 5] Initial CTR assistance was 
provided to Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Russia, which had 
inherited the majority of the Soviet Union's WMD. The program helped 
Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus remove nuclear weapons from their 
soil, eliminating the potential emergence of three additional nuclear 
states. CTR also facilitated Russia's efforts to reduce its massive 
nuclear weapons arsenal and address its arms control commitments. In 
fiscal year 2004, CTR had 22 projects (see app. I). One of the newest 
CTR projects--the WMD Proliferation Prevention Initiative--is designed 
to strengthen the ability of non-Russian FSU states to deter, detect, 
and interdict illicit trafficking of WMD and related materials. For 
example, DOD is providing equipment and training to Uzbekistan to 
enhance its ability to monitor its borders for illegal transport of 
radioactive material. Additionally, the CTR program has expanded 
outside of the FSU, as DOD will use CTR funds to help Albania eliminate 
its chemical weapons stockpile. Furthermore, a bill introduced in the 
Senate in November 2004 would grant DOD additional flexibility to 
expand the CTR program outside the FSU. DOD implements the CTR program 
through the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which receives 
policy guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

In 1993, DOE began implementing programs funded by DOD, to help secure 
weapons-usable nuclear materials in the FSU. DOE also received funding 
in 1994 from State to employ former Soviet weapons scientists and 
engineers in cooperative research projects with U.S. laboratories and 
industry to deter their employment by rogue states. In 1996, with the 
growth of these programs, funding shifted directly to DOE. These 
programs remained focused on the FSU and were spread throughout DOE. In 
October 1999, DOE's nonproliferation programs were consolidated within 
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).[Footnote 6] Since 
that time, NNSA's nonproliferation mission has been implemented by the 
Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN), which seeks to 
detect, prevent, and reverse WMD proliferation. This mission has now 
expanded to address proliferation threats in more than 70 countries to 
prevent the spread of WMD. For example, DNN is initiating a new program 
to provide employment opportunities to Iraqi scientists, technicians, 
and engineers. In fiscal year 2004, DOE had 19 projects addressing 
nonproliferation threats worldwide (see app. I). The threat reduction 
and nonproliferation programs have evolved from a $400 million DOD 
program in 1992 to approximately $1.8 billion in programs at DOD and 
DOE in 2004.[Footnote 7]

The State Department also manages its own nonproliferation programs and 
coordinates U.S. assistance to the FSU. In 1992, the Freedom Support 
Act[Footnote 8] established the Office of the Coordinator within the 
State Department to coordinate U.S. assistance to the FSU. The 
coordinator's responsibilities include resolving program and policy 
disputes among U.S. government agencies regarding their programs in the 
FSU. In 1994, State and DOD established the International Science and 
Technology Center in Moscow to fund peaceful research carried out by 
otherwise underpaid weapons scientists.[Footnote 9] The center 
supplements the income of scientists, purchases equipment for 
scientific research, and supports programs to help scientists identify 
and develop commercially viable research projects. In 1996, the 
Congress established State's Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, 
Demining, and Related Programs Account to fund programs addressing the 
spread of WMD. For example, the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund 
supports projects to prevent the proliferation of WMD, their delivery 
systems, and related materials.

NSC staff coordinates U.S. policy for threat reduction and 
nonproliferation programs and conducted reviews of these programs that 
validated the need to maintain them in 2001 and 2002.[Footnote 10] The 
Proliferation Strategy Policy Coordinating Committee, chaired by the 
Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for 
Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation and Homeland Defense, sets 
general policy for U.S. nonproliferation programs. NSC staff 
establishes guidelines but does not implement programs or control their 
budgets.

DOD and DOE Strategic Plans for Threat Reduction and Nonproliferation 
Programs Are Not Integrated and Do Not Address U.S. Programs Worldwide: 

DOD and DOE prepare their own individual strategies to implement their 
respective threat reduction and nonproliferation programs, but there is 
no governmentwide strategy that integrates them with one another or 
with those of other agencies that implement threat reduction and 
nonproliferation programs.[Footnote 11] We found that DOD and DOE 
strategies to address security issues for their authorized agency 
missions generally meet selected criteria for strategic planning 
established by GPRA. Recognizing the importance of coordinating U.S. 
efforts, using resources effectively, and enhancing agencies' abilities 
to anticipate growing nonproliferation concerns, the Congress, GAO, and 
others have required or recommended integrated planning among DOD, DOE, 
and other agencies' threat reduction and nonproliferation programs. NSC 
staff and State created plans in response to the above requirements and 
recommendations, but these plans either focus solely on one agency or 
on one geographic location. Furthermore, these programs are expanding 
beyond the FSU and may potentially involve the response of multiple 
U.S. agencies.

DOD and DOE Strategies for Threat Reduction and Nonproliferation 
Programs Generally Meet Criteria Established by the Government 
Performance and Results Act: 

DOD and DOE each have strategic plans governing their respective threat 
reduction and nonproliferation programs.[Footnote 12] We found that 
each agency's strategic plan generally meets the selected GPRA criteria 
for strategic planning. See table 1 for a listing of the selected GPRA 
criteria. Additionally, we found that DOD and DOE have their own 
methods to prioritize their respective activities and programs. 
Furthermore, DOD and DOE threat reduction and nonproliferation programs 
undergo periodic internal and external reviews to improve program 
management.

Table 1: Selected GPRA Criteria for Strategic Planning: 

Strategic plan element: Mission; 
Description: A comprehensive and concise statement describing the basic 
purpose of the agency, with a particular focus on its major agency 
functions and operations.

Strategic plan element: Goals; 
Description: Provide clear direction to the work, services, programs, 
and activities of an organization and desired outcomes.

Strategic plan element: External factors; 
Description: Describe the broader environment that can influence 
inputs, outputs, and outcomes, such as policy or economic changes.

Strategic plan element: Performance metrics; 
Description: Provide a succinct and concrete statement of expected 
performance for subsequent comparison with actual performance.

Strategic plan element: Cost estimates; 
Description: Describe the resources required to achieve the goals.

Strategic plan element: Covers 5 years; 
Description: A strategic plan covers a period of at least 5 years 
forward.

Source: GAO analysis of GPRA.

[End of table]

Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Planning: 

The CTR Policy Office, in conjunction with DTRA, produces and updates a 
strategy for the CTR program.[Footnote 13] We found that this strategy 
generally contains the elements of a strategic plan developed using 
GPRA criteria. Additionally, all CTR projects develop detailed plans 
that also contain these elements. Figure 1 depicts DOD offices that are 
involved in strategic planning for the CTR programs.

Figure 1: DOD Offices That Are Involved in Strategic Planning for the 
CTR Program: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

In accordance with GPRA, the CTR program's mission statement is 
comprehensive and concise: that is, to prevent the proliferation of WMD 
and related materials, technologies, and expertise from FSU states--
including providing for the safe destruction of Soviet-era WMD, 
associated delivery systems, and related infrastructure. The CTR 
program's strategy also includes the following specific goals: (1) 
dismantle FSU WMD and associated infrastructure, (2) consolidate and 
secure FSU WMD and related technology and materials, (3) increase 
transparency and encourage higher standards of conduct, and (4) support 
defense and military cooperation with the objective of preventing 
proliferation. These goals provide clear direction to the activities 
and desired outcomes of the CTR program.

The CTR strategy also cites external factors that could affect the 
program, describes how performance will be measured, and states budget 
requirements. For example, the level of Russian cooperation is cited as 
an external factor that will affect the successful implementation of 
the program. The strategy provides metrics by which performance of the 
program can be measured, such as the number of missiles destroyed. DOD 
and DOE performance metrics are shown in appendix II. In accordance 
with GPRA criteria, the CTR plans include cost estimates and cover a 
period of 5 years. For example, the overall CTR funding request for 
fiscal year 2005 is $409 million, and the 5-year plan calls for an 
additional $1.5 billion between fiscal years 2006 and 2009.

The CTR program has five program areas, with several projects under 
each program area. Each project has a plan that details its broad 
mission, specific objectives, external factors that could affect the 
achievement of these objectives, metrics that are used to evaluate the 
performance of the project, and cost estimates. For example, the 
mission of the Automated Inventory Control and Management System 
project, under the nuclear weapons safety and security program area, is 
to enhance Russia's capability to account for and track the strategic 
and tactical nuclear weapons scheduled for dismantlement. Specific 
objectives include installing hardware and software at 18 sites within 
Russia and providing initial training and data entry. External factors 
cited for this program include whether Russia will grant sufficient 
access to the sites and improve the equipment storage conditions. The 
project uses milestone dates, which range from the procurement of the 
software to the final certification of the system at all sites, as one 
method to measure its performance. The project is estimated to cost 
$50.2 million.

Additionally, according to agency officials, DOD has not had to 
prioritize CTR projects on the basis of available funds. The CTR 
program generally receives the funding requested for its projects. DOD 
develops its budget request for the CTR program on the basis of funding 
needed to continue existing programs and implement new programs. As a 
result, projects have not competed for funding.

Furthermore, the CTR program has undergone internal performance reviews 
in order to improve management practices. In 2003, the CTR Policy 
Office conducted a 6-month, project-by-project review of the program 
that changed the scope of several CTR projects to ensure that program 
activities met threat reduction goals. The review also resulted in a 
decision to stop funding activities that did not contribute directly to 
threat reduction goals. For example, the CTR program no longer funds 
the restoration of the environment surrounding missile sites but 
continues to fund the elimination of the nuclear missiles and silos.

The CTR program also has undergone several external reviews to identify 
areas needing improvement. For example, in 1996, we recommended that no 
funds should be obligated for constructing a chemical weapons 
destruction facility in Russia until reliable cost estimates were 
completed.[Footnote 14] (See prior GAO reports listed at the end of 
this report.) The DOD Inspector General also recommended that the CTR 
program adopt numerous controls to improve program management. For 
example, the DOD Inspector General recommended amendments to CTR 
program implementing agreements with Russia to ensure that Russia 
provides its weapons systems and their components scheduled for 
destruction, that it grants access rights to DOD, and that it is 
penalized for failure to use DOD assistance. As a result of this 
recommendation, DOD required Russia to sign an agreement specifying 
that all of Russia's declared nerve agents could be destroyed at a 
facility under construction by the CTR program.[Footnote 15] However, 
DOD did not include a penalty for noncompliance.

Department of Energy Nonproliferation Planning: 

DNN produces a broad strategy for DOE's nonproliferation programs, and 
DNN's six program offices prepare strategic plans for their projects. 
Collectively, these plans generally contain the elements of a strategic 
plan developed using GPRA criteria. Figure 2 depicts DOE offices that 
are involved in strategic planning for DOE's nonproliferation programs.

Figure 2: DOE Offices That Are Involved in Strategic Planning for 
Nonproliferation Programs: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

In accordance with GPRA, DNN's strategic plan clearly states its 
mission--which is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear 
weapons-usable and radiological materials, technologies, and 
expertise. This plan also describes broad goals for its 
nonproliferation mission. For example, one of its goals is to secure 
nuclear and radiological materials at potentially vulnerable sites 
overseas. DNN's plan identifies external factors that could affect its 
program goals, such as delays in its program to employ weapons 
scientists due to lengthy Russian government clearance procedures.

Although DNN's strategic plan does not list performance measures for 
each of its nonproliferation projects, DNN maintains a database of 
goals and performance metrics for each of its six program areas. For 
example, to measure performance in preventing the migration of WMD 
expertise, DNN tracks the annual number of former Soviet weapons 
scientists, engineers, and technicians engaged by its programs. 
Appendix II contains performance metrics for DOE's nonproliferation. In 
accordance with GPRA criteria, DNN plans include cost estimates and 
cover a period of 5 years. For example, DNN is requesting $1.3 billion 
for fiscal year 2005 and is projected to request an additional $5.7 
billion between fiscal years 2006 and 2009.

In the past, DNN generally received requested funding for its 
nonproliferation programs, but as the scope of these programs expanded, 
DNN began to prioritize projects within program areas, according to 
agency officials. In fiscal year 2004, DOE first applied several 
criteria, such as risk, availability of funding, and legal obligations, 
to prioritize projects. The criteria were used to identify activities 
with the greatest proliferation risk, on which DOE focused its 
resources. For example, in fiscal year 2004, Russia provided access to 
more nuclear warhead storage sites than originally planned. DOE 
diverted funds from lower priority activities, such as converting 
weapons-grade uranium[Footnote 16] to uranium that cannot be used in 
weapons,[Footnote 17] in order to fund security enhancements at the new 
nuclear warhead storage sites.

DNN's nonproliferation programs have undergone internal and external 
reviews to identify areas needing improvement. The NNSA Under Secretary 
biannually reviews each program's budget, accomplishments, and any 
other concerns. DOE also uses the results of external audits to 
identify areas needing improvement. For example, audits conducted by 
the DOE Inspector General have recommended improvements to NNSA's 
process for matching program requirements with budgetary resources and 
managing the program to eliminate weapons-grade uranium in research 
reactors. In addition, we have conducted numerous reviews of various 
aspects of DOE's nonproliferation programs. For example, in 2001, we 
found duplication between DOE's two programs to employ former weapons 
scientists in Russia and recommended consolidating the 
programs.[Footnote 18] In response, DOE merged the programs into a new 
program, the Russian Transition Initiatives.

The Congress and Others Have Called for a Governmentwide Plan, but None 
Has Been Developed to Address U.S. Programs Worldwide: 

Since the mid-1990s, the Congress and others have called for the 
executive branch to develop governmentwide plans to govern threat 
reduction and nonproliferation programs. The Congress found that 
although U.S. nonproliferation efforts in the FSU have achieved 
important results in securing WMD materials, technology, and knowledge, 
the effectiveness of these efforts has suffered from a lack of 
coordination within and among agencies.[Footnote 19] Recognizing the 
importance of integrated planning of threat reduction and 
nonproliferation programs, the Congress required the executive branch 
to develop three plans. To comply with the requirements of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, as amended,[Footnote 
20] the President submitted a plan and an annual report on the 
implementation of the plan covering all agency efforts to secure 
nuclear weapons, material, and expertise in the FSU. This plan 
addressed the specific requirements of the legislation, including 
identifying the goals and objectives of the programs and strategies for 
terminating U.S. contributions to the programs.

The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 requires (1) 
the State Department to provide the appropriate congressional 
committees with a 3-year international arms control and 
nonproliferation strategy and (2) the President to provide the Congress 
with a plan detailing coordination of nonproliferation 
programs.[Footnote 21] State submitted the 3-year international arms 
control and nonproliferation strategy to the Congress in August 2003. 
The strategy focuses on the State Department's programs and activities, 
discusses broad U.S. arms control and nonproliferation goals, and 
describes State's efforts under way to achieve these goals. For the 
coordination plan, the Congress required the establishment of an 
interagency committee consisting of representatives of the Departments 
of Defense, Energy, State, Commerce, Homeland Security, and the 
Attorney General and other officials that the President deems 
necessary. This committee will exercise responsibility for coordinating 
all U.S. threat reduction efforts and enhance the U.S. government's 
ability to anticipate growing nonproliferation areas of concern. This 
committee is required to submit a coordination plan in May 2005.
[Footnote 22]

In past work, we found that the development of a governmentwide 
strategy could strengthen the coordination of threat reduction and 
nonproliferation programs.[Footnote 23] The strategy should identify 
overall goals, time frames for meeting those goals, and ways to set 
priorities for allocating resources governmentwide to address all U.S. 
nonproliferation concerns.

The executive branch also called for the development of a 
governmentwide plan for U.S. threat reduction and nonproliferation 
programs. Specifically, the President's National Strategy to Combat 
Weapons of Mass Destruction of 2002 calls on the Proliferation Strategy 
Policy Coordinating Committee, chaired by NSC staff, to prepare a 5-
year governmentwide plan by March 2003.[Footnote 24] To achieve greater 
efficiency through program coordination, the strategy stated that this 
governmentwide plan should include all threat reduction and 
nonproliferation programs in the FSU that are funded wholly or in part 
by the U.S. government. As of November 2004, the plan had yet to be 
developed.

In addition, independent panels have also called for the development of 
governmentwide plans. In 1998, the Congress established the Commission 
to Assess the Organization of the Federal Government to Combat the 
Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (the Deutch Commission), 
which recommended coordinated and consistent governmentwide strategies 
to address nonproliferation threats to the United States. In 2001, the 
Baker-Cutler Commission, established by the Secretary of Energy, 
recommended the development of a national strategic plan to secure all 
Russian nuclear weapons-useable material and prevent WMD expertise from 
leaving Russia. No reports have been developed that address either 
commission's recommendations. Table 2 is a listing of the various calls 
for governmentwide plans and their status.

Table 2: Calls for Governmentwide Plans for Threat Reduction and 
Nonproliferation Programs: 

Report name/Requester: National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 
year 2002, as amended; 
Requirement/Summary: Requires the President to submit a plan and an 
annual report on the implementation of the plan for all agency efforts 
to secure nuclear weapons and materials and prevent the outflow of WMD 
expertise from the FSU; 
Status: Initial strategy was due in June 2002 and the annual report on 
implementation was due in January 2003, and annually thereafter; Both 
the strategy and 2003 annual plan were delivered late to the Congress 
on March 11, 2003; As of November 2004, the 2004 annual implementation 
report had not been delivered.

Report name/Requester: Foreign Relations Authorization Act, fiscal year 
2003; 
Requirement/Summary: Requires the State Department to submit a 3-year 
international arms control and nonproliferation strategy for reducing 
and controlling the proliferation of WMD, which includes (1) U.S. goals 
for arms control and nonproliferation of WMD and (2) a description of 
State Department programs intended to accomplish these goals; 
Status: State Department sent report to the Congress on August 11, 
2003.

Report name/Requester: Foreign Relations Authorization Act, fiscal year 
2003; 
Requirement/Summary: Requires the President to submit a strategy to 
coordinate the threat reduction and nonproliferation objectives of the 
executive branch agencies; 
Status: Report is not due until 120 days after the 2005 inauguration.

Report name/Requester: National Strategy to Combat WMD; 
Requirement/Summary: Requires the Proliferation Strategy Policy 
Coordinating 
Committee to develop a 5-year plan for all threat reduction and 
nonproliferation programs in the FSU; 
Status: Plan was due in March 2003; No plan was delivered as of 
November 2004.

Report name/Requester: Deutch Commission; 
Requirement/Summary: Recommends developing coordinated and consistent 
governmentwide strategies that include country-specific, long-term 
plans to reduce the demands for WMD; 
Status: No deadline for submission; No plan was delivered as of 
November 2004.

Report name/Requester: Baker-Cutler Commission; 
Requirement/Summary: Recommends a plan for securing all nuclear 
weapons-usable material in Russia and to prevent the outflow of 
scientific expertise that could be used for nuclear or other WMD, 
which includes clearly defined goals and measurable objectives, 
associated budgets for each program, and criteria for success; 
Status: No deadline for submission; No plan was delivered as of 
November 2004. 

Source: GAO description of legislation and reports related to 
nonproliferation programs.

[End of table]

None of the existing plans in table 2 integrates agencies' plans with 
one another or addresses U.S. threat reduction and nonproliferation 
programs worldwide. For example, the plan developed as a result of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 did not address 
programs to secure and eliminate chemical weapons in Russia or the 
infrastructure used to develop chemical and biological weapons 
throughout the FSU. Similarly, the 2003 arms control plan that State 
prepared addressed U.S. arms controls efforts, but the plan is limited 
to a description of DOE's programs for addressing these goals.

NSC Staff Guidance Delineating Agencies' Roles, Information Sharing, 
and Dispute Resolution Results in Improved Program Coordination: 

On the basis of our review of NSC staff guidance and discussions with 
DOD and DOE officials, we found that coordination among programs that 
share similar missions, goals, and activities is improved when each 
agency's roles and responsibilities are delineated, information sharing 
is formalized, and procedures for resolving interagency disputes are 
clear. While the majority of programs in DOD and DOE are distinct, 
three program areas perform similar functions in the FSU: (1) improving 
the security of sites where Russian nuclear warheads are stored, (2) 
employing former biological weapons scientists, and (3) enhancing the 
ability of countries to secure their borders against the smuggling of 
WMD materials. The warhead security programs implemented by DOD and DOE 
were not well coordinated in the past, but NSC staff guidance that 
describes each agency's role, formalizes meetings, and establishes a 
dispute resolution process has improved coordination, according to 
agency officials. DOD, DOE, and State officials in the biological 
weapons scientists programs understand each agency's roles and 
responsibilities, meet monthly, and follow dispute resolution 
procedures as described in governmentwide guidance for this program 
area. By contrast, there is no governmentwide guidance delineating the 
roles and responsibilities of agencies managing border security 
programs. As a result, DOD and DOE officials managing border security 
programs stated that agencies' roles are not defined, information 
sharing is infrequent, and there are no procedures to resolve 
differences among agencies.

Most DOD and DOE Threat Reduction and Nonproliferation Programs Are 
Distinct: 

We found that most threat reduction and nonproliferation projects in 
DOD and DOE have distinct missions, goals, and activities. DOD's CTR 
program has few projects that are similar to those in DOE and State. 
Figure 3 folds DOD's projects into broader program areas and 
distinguishes those distinct program areas from those that are similar. 
First, DOD has several projects in the FSU to destroy strategic weapons 
systems such as bombers, missiles, and submarines. Second, DOD funds 
the safe and secure transport of the Russian nuclear warheads scheduled 
for elimination. Third, DOD is constructing a chemical weapons 
destruction facility at Shchuch'ye to help eliminate Russia's declared 
stockpile of nerve agents. Fourth, DOD is assisting in the elimination 
of WMD infrastructure by, for example, dismantling biological weapons 
facilities in Kazakhstan. Finally, the CTR program engages in projects 
that facilitate contact between U.S. and FSU defense and military 
personnel. Program events include conferences, seminars, and combined 
military exercises designed to strengthen defense partnerships between 
the United States and FSU states.

Figure 3: DOD and DOE Threat Reduction and Nonproliferation Program 
Areas: 

[See PDF for image] 

[A] Currently, DOD only has programs employing biological weapons 
scientists, whereas DOE and State's programs employ chemical, nuclear, 
missile, and biological weapons scientists.

[End of figure] 

We also found that most DOE projects have distinct missions, goals, and 
activities addressing the proliferation threat posed by nuclear and 
radiological materials (see fig. 3). First, fissile materials 
disposition projects eliminate weapons-grade nuclear materials. For 
example, DOE has a project to eliminate surplus Russian plutonium by 
turning it into fuel for use in civilian nuclear power plants. Second, 
DOE is assisting Russia by shutting down three nuclear power plants 
that produce plutonium and replacing them with power plants fueled by 
coal. Third, DOE conducts nonproliferation research and development, 
such as developing technologies used to detect, locate, and identify 
nuclear explosions. Fourth, DOE consolidates and secures radioactive 
materials that could be used in dirty bombs.[Footnote 25] Finally, 
DOE's highly enriched uranium transparency project monitors the 
conversion of material from Russian nuclear warheads into fuel for 
civilian nuclear power plants.

We found three program areas where both DOD and DOE have projects that 
perform similar activities in the FSU. First, both agencies have 
projects to improve the security of sites where Russian nuclear 
warheads are stored, such as installing fences and security systems. 
Second, both agencies have projects to employ former biological weapons 
scientists to prevent the proliferation of their expertise to states 
and terrorist organizations. Third, both agencies have projects to 
enhance the ability of countries to secure their borders against the 
smuggling of WMD materials. The State Department has its own programs 
to employ biological former biological weapons scientists and secure 
borders against the trafficking of WMD materials and plays a role in 
coordinating U.S. efforts in these areas. See appendix III for more 
information regarding DOD, DOE, and State's projects in these areas.

Warhead Security Program Coordination Has Improved: 

We have previously reported that DOD and DOE were pursuing different 
approaches to securing nuclear warhead sites in Russia.[Footnote 26] 
DOD and DOE had plans to upgrade some of the same storage sites, and 
DOD had already purchased equipment to upgrade security at some of 
those sites. Additionally, DOD and DOE used different vendors to 
purchase different equipment to perform the same function, which could 
have resulted in extra training and maintenance costs. As a result of 
our work, DOD and DOE coordinated their efforts to avoid duplication by 
identifying the agency with the best access to and cooperation of the 
Russians to install the security upgrades. Furthermore, we recommended 
that an integrated plan be developed for these programs on issues such 
as resolving equipment standardization concerns.

During the course of our audit work, NSC staff issued common policy 
guidance for DOD and DOE programs that help Russia secure its nuclear 
warheads. The policy guidance prohibited assistance to operational 
sites due to concerns that U.S. assistance may enhance Russia's 
military capability. Additionally, NSC staff established interagency 
procedures for coordinating warhead security assistance activities 
through a working group that reviews all requests for assistance, with 
neither DOD nor DOE being allowed to implement a project without the 
group's approval. In the case of a dispute, an agency can escalate the 
request for assistance to a higher level interagency group. According 
to both DOD and DOE officials, the guidelines and procedures 
implemented since our report have improved coordination, such as 
holding interagency meetings. In commenting on a draft of this report, 
DOE stated that DOD and DOE include representatives from the other 
agency on each other's bilateral forums with the Russians. Other 
working group participants acknowledged that coordination concerns have 
been reduced but stated that information sharing should be improved, 
especially about issues escalated above the working group level.

Biological Weapons Scientist Employment Programs Have Elements of Well 
Coordinated Programs: 

We found that the coordination of biological weapons scientist 
employment programs is characterized by clearly delineated roles and 
responsibilities, regular interaction, and dispute resolution 
procedures. In September 2002, NSC staff issued guidelines governing 
the coordination of the biological weapons scientist employment 
programs, which addressed these three elements. These guidelines state 
the roles of each agency, formalize information sharing, and include 
procedures for resolving disputes. Additionally, the guidelines 
describe oversight requirements and other factors to be considered when 
implementing these programs.

Agency officials managing the biological weapons scientist employment 
programs did not report any difficulties pertaining to coordination or 
to the activities of other agencies. These officials stated that the 
NSC staff guidelines are valuable in ensuring that activities are 
undertaken by the appropriate agency and agencies' programs work toward 
common U.S. objectives. These guidelines established the 
Nonproliferation Interagency Roundtable, which ensures that all 
agencies are aware of each other's activities in employing biological 
weapons scientists in the FSU and that the agencies avoid duplication 
of efforts. Proposals for new projects are reviewed and voted on 
monthly by the Nonproliferation Interagency Roundtable. If 
disagreements arise after the voting process has occurred, agencies may 
escalate the decision to a group chaired by NSC staff. Officials we 
spoke with stated that coordination has worked successfully. DOD, DOE, 
and State officials all cited the NSC staff guidelines when discussing 
their programs with us and confirmed that these guidelines were applied 
governmentwide.

Border Security Programs Lack Elements of Well Coordinated Programs: 

There is no governmentwide guidance for border security programs that 
delineates agencies' roles and responsibilities, establishes regular 
information sharing, and defines procedures for resolving interagency 
disputes, according to DOD and DOE officials. Although the State 
Department prepared a strategic plan that identifies and describes 
border security programs and interagency coordination mechanisms in 
Eurasia, the plan does not clearly establish the departments' roles or 
how information is shared.[Footnote 27] The plan also acknowledges that 
NSC staff will provide policy oversight and guidance to implement the 
border security programs, but DOD and DOE officials with whom we met 
were unaware of such guidance.

The primary coordination mechanism for all border security programs is 
an interagency working group chaired by the State Department's 
Nonproliferation Bureau. According to DOD and DOE officials, the group 
does not have regularly scheduled meetings.[Footnote 28] DOE officials 
stated they would prefer to meet more often to facilitate coordination 
of their programs and reduce the amount of informal coordination, such 
as telephone conversations and e-mails, which they believe is less 
efficient. State Department officials acknowledged that coordination of 
these programs could be better, but stated that they lack the authority 
to resolve conflicts over coordination.

In the absence of guidance for coordination, agency officials question 
the other agencies' roles and responsibilities. For example, both State 
and DOD officials acknowledged that their border security programs 
conduct similar activities, such as training border security guards and 
providing equipment for detecting illicit trafficking of WMD. 
Furthermore, State Department officials questioned whether some aspects 
of DOD's International Counterproliferation Program were targeting 
countries that may no longer require the type of assistance being 
provided. For example, DOD's program provided basic level WMD courses 
to officials from Bulgaria, which is beyond the need for basic level 
training, according to a State Department official.

In May 2002, we reported problems with the coordination of border 
security programs.[Footnote 29] We found that portal monitors provided 
through the State Department's border security program did not meet the 
standards established by DOE.[Footnote 30] Since our report, the State 
Department has transferred responsibility of operation and maintenance 
of the monitors to DOE, and State is no longer funding the installation 
of portal monitors. According to State and DOE officials, the specific 
problems we highlighted have since been resolved, such as the 
coordination of agencies' border security activities. We have follow-up 
work under way regarding this issue.

Conclusions: 

DOD and DOE develop their own strategic plans, prioritize their own 
program activities, and measure their own program performance. While 
this approach helps keep the departments on track to meet their own 
objectives, it does not provide governmentwide guidance for U.S. threat 
reduction and nonproliferation programs, which would include goals, 
time frames for meeting those goals, and mechanisms for establishing 
priorities across the various departments involved in program 
implementation. In light of the U.S. government's elimination of 
nuclear infrastructure in Libya, recent agreement to eliminate chemical 
weapons in Albania, and the growing likelihood of other efforts 
expanding outside the FSU, overall strategic guidance becomes 
increasingly important given the involvement of multiple agencies. 
While NSC staff has provided guidance to agencies implementing programs 
to secure Russian warheads and employ former Soviet biological weapons 
scientists, there is no governmentwide strategy for agencies 
implementing threat reduction and nonproliferation programs worldwide. 
The requirement in the Fiscal Year 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization 
Act for a Presidential report detailing the coordination of 
nonproliferation programs provides an opportunity for the 
administration to review its broad array of threat reduction and 
nonproliferation programs to ensure that the programs and capabilities 
of the various departments address all proliferation threats worldwide. 
As part of this effort, DOD and DOE can draw upon lessons learned from 
programs in the FSU.

In addition, while the majority of threat reduction and 
nonproliferation programs do not address similar missions, it is still 
important for policy makers and program managers at DOD and DOE to (1) 
understand how their efforts contribute to broader U.S. goals and (2) 
have formal mechanisms for sharing information and lessons learned that 
cut across programmatic boundaries. In those areas where more than one 
department is addressing a similar mission, interagency coordination is 
important to avoid duplication and collectively meet common goals. We 
found that interagency coordination of threat reduction and 
nonproliferation programs appears to work best when there is clear 
guidance from NSC staff regarding the roles of the various departments, 
regularized agency interactions, and resolution of interagency 
disputes, as is the case with the projects to employ biological weapons 
scientists and secure warhead sites. However, we found that 
coordination is limited among the border security projects where there 
is no NSC staff guidance.

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, in 
consultation with other agencies involved in threat reduction and 
nonproliferation programs, develop an integrated plan for all U.S. 
threat reduction and nonproliferation programs to ensure that the 
programs are effectively coordinated and address all threats. The 
results of this review should be reported to the Congress as part of 
the President's response to section 1339 of the Fiscal Year 2003 
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which requires the President to 
submit a report after each presidential inauguration on threat 
reduction and nonproliferation objectives and how executive branch 
efforts will be coordinated.

We also recommend that the Assistant to the President for National 
Security Affairs, through the NSC staff, lead the development of a plan 
guiding the implementation and coordination of threat reduction and 
nonproliferation programs addressing border security as they have done 
with the programs addressing the employment of biological weapons 
scientists. This plan should identify U.S. government goals and 
objectives, designate departments' roles and responsibilities, and 
establish procedures to resolve policy and program disputes.

Agency Comments: 

DOE and DOD provided comments on a draft of this report, which are 
reproduced in appendixes IV and V. DOE agreed with the report and the 
corresponding recommendations. DOD concurred with the need for better 
integrated nonproliferation and threat reduction programs, but did not 
specify whether it agreed with the need for an integrated plan. DOD 
concurred with the need for NSC staff guidance governing border 
security programs. State Department and the NSC staff did not comment 
on this report. DOE, DOD, and State provided technical comments, which 
we incorporated as appropriate.

Scope and Methodology: 

To assess DOD and DOE's strategies to implement their respective threat 
reduction and nonproliferation programs, we obtained agencies' 
strategic plans, project/program planning documents, budget documents, 
and annual reports. To assess attempts to integrate these strategies, 
we consulted relevant public laws and met with experts at the Nuclear 
Threat Initiative, a global initiative that seeks to raise public 
awareness of WMD threats and carries out threat reduction work; the 
Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of 
International Studies, a nongovernmental organization in the United 
States that provides research and training on nonproliferation issues; 
and the U.S. - Russia Corporate Partnerships Advancing Nonproliferation 
and National Security, a congressional bipartisan study group. To 
assess DOD and DOE strategies to implement their threat reduction and 
nonproliferation programs, we compared them against select criteria 
contained in GPRA and reviewed our prior work relating to performance 
metrics and program assessment. We also interviewed DOD and DOE 
officials, including the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for 
Technology Security Policy and Counterproliferation, the Director and 
Deputy Director of DTRA's CTR program, and senior leadership from the 
CTR program office. The DOE officials we interviewed include the Deputy 
Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation and senior officials 
from the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program. In addition, 
we spoke with officials from the DOD and DOE Inspector's General 
office, the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Research 
Service, and the intelligence community.

To assess efforts to coordinate DOD, DOE, and State programs with 
similar missions, we obtained documents from these agencies regarding 
their threat reduction and nonproliferation programs. We also reviewed 
NSC staff guidance on biological weapons scientists' employment and 
warhead security programs. We also reviewed DOD, DOE, and State 
documents regarding their border security programs. Finally, we relied 
on our previous reviews of the CTR program and several nonproliferation 
programs within DOE and the State Department. We also interviewed 
numerous officials, including the Director and Deputy Director of 
DTRA's CTR program, the Office of the Secretary of Defense Policy for 
CTR programs, and the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Technology 
Security Policy and Counterproliferation. DOE officials include the 
Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, the 
Assistant Deputy Administrator of the Office of International Material 
Protection and Cooperation, and other senior officials from the other 
DNN program areas. At the State Department, we interviewed the 
Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and Eurasia and met with 
officials from the Bureau of Nonproliferation. We also met with the 
managers of programs addressing border security, weapons security, and 
employment of biological weapons scientists. NSC officials did not 
respond to our requests to meet. However, we discussed the role of the 
NSC staff and the extent of its participation in coordinating programs 
with DOD, DOE, and State officials.

We also relied on related prior GAO reports. We performed our review in 
Washington, D.C., from February 2004 to November 2004 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees; the National Security Council; and the Secretaries of 
Defense, Energy, and State. We will also make copies available to 
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available on the 
GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

If you have questions regarding this report, please contact Mr. 
Christoff at (202) 512-8979 or [Hyperlink, christoffj@gao.gov] or Mr. 
Aloise at (202) 512-3841 or [Hyperlink, aloisee@gao.gov]. GAO contacts 
and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix VI.

Signed by: 

Joseph A. Christoff: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 

Signed by: 

Gene Aloise: 
Acting Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: DOD and DOE Threat Reduction and Nonproliferation Projects, 
Fiscal Year 2004: 

Table 3: Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Projects: 

Project: Emergency Response Support Equipment; 
Description: Provides equipment to Russia for use in an emergency 
response train should accidents occur during transportation of 
ballistic missiles. The equipment, including a rail-mounted crane, 
hydraulic tools, concrete pulverizers, and an excavator, is available 
to support missile transportation and dismantlement.

Project: Solid Propellant Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) 
and Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) and Mobile Launcher 
Elimination; 
Description: Will refurbish and operate Russian missile disassembly 
facilities; 
provide the equipment for and operation of, mobile launcher elimination 
facilities; 
and perform destruction of treaty-limited components.

Project: Liquid Propellant ICBM and Silo Elimination; 
Description: Eliminates silos and destroy missiles in accordance with 
treaty requirements. Activities include deactivating silos, providing 
upgrades to the missile elimination and destruction facility at 
Surovatikha, and furnishing equipment to store and transport liquid 
missile propellant.

Project: SLBM Launcher Elimination/Ballistic Missile Submarine 
Dismantlement; 
Description: Assists Russia in eliminating submarine missile launchers 
in accordance with treaty requirements and provide assistance to 
dismantle and eliminate submarine.

Project: Spent Naval Fuel Disposition; 
Description: Supports submarine missile launcher elimination and 
associated ballistic missile submarine dismantlement through dry 
storage of spent nuclear fuel removed when defueling submarines. In 
addition to storing the fuel in storage/ transportation containers, a 
means of transporting the containers by rail from the shipyard to a 
final storage/disposition location is included.

Project: Liquid Propellant SLBM Elimination; 
Description: Assists in destroying submarine missiles from the Russian 
Northern and Pacific Fleets. The destruction process includes shipping, 
defueling, neutralization, and cutting into pieces all proliferable 
components of submarine missiles.

Project: Personnel Reliability and Safety; 
Description: Provides training and equipment to assist Russia in 
determining the reliability of its guard forces.

Project: Site Security Enhancements; 
Description: Enhances the safety and security of Russian nuclear 
weapons storage sites through the use of vulnerability assessments to 
determine specific requirements for upgrades. The Department of Defense 
(DOD) will then develop security designs to address those 
vulnerabilities and install the equipment necessary to bring security 
standards consistent with those at U.S. nuclear weapons storage 
facilities.

Project: Nuclear Weapons Transportation; 
Description: Assists Russia in shipping nuclear warheads to more secure 
sites or dismantlement locations.

Project: Railcar Maintenance and Procurement; 
Description: Assists Russia in maintaining nuclear weapons cargo 
railcars. Funds maintenance of railcars until no longer feasible, then 
purchases replacement railcars to maintain 100 cars in service. DOD 
will procure 15 guard railcars to replace those retired from service. 
Guard railcars will be capable of monitoring security systems in the 
cargo railcars and transporting security force personnel.

Project: Weapons Transportation Safety Enhancements; 
Description: Will provide emergency response vehicles containing 
hydraulic cutting tools, pneumatic jacks, and safety gear to enhance 
Russia's ability to respond to possible accidents in transporting 
nuclear weapons. Meteorological, radiation detection and monitoring, 
and communications equipment is also included.

Project: Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility; 
Description: Is constructing a destruction facility for Russian nerve 
agent-filled munitions near the town of Shchuch'ye. The United States 
will fund the design, construction, equipment acquisition and 
installation, systems integration, training, and start-up of the 
destruction facility. The Russians will construct one of the two 
buildings in which the nerve agent will be removed from munitions and 
neutralized, and the drained munitions will be decontaminated.

Project: Chemical Weapons Production Facility Demilitarization; 
Description: Will demilitarize former nerve agent weapons production 
facilities by decontaminating, dismantling, and destroying specialized 
equipment and special features related to the production, transfer, 
and storage of chemical agent/weapons in accordance with treaty 
requirements.

Project: SS-24 Missile Motor Elimination; 
Description: Is contingent on Ukraine agreeing to a means of missile 
motor disposal other than the original "water washout method." 
According to DOD, this method was fiscally and technologically risky. 
If an alternate means is agreed upon, the project would also fund 
continued storage of the motors until eliminated.

Project: Biological Weapons (BW) Infrastructure Elimination; 
Description: Assesses all known former BW facilities and institutes in 
the former Soviet Union where access is provided. These assessments 
provide detailed vulnerability and threat analyses for each institute 
and facility, which will then be used to develop implementation plans 
for reducing BW proliferation threats and prioritizing facility 
dismantlement efforts.

Project: Biosecurity and Biosafety; 
Description: Provides security and safety upgrades at institutes 
engaged only in legitimate dangerous pathogen research. Tasks include 
identification and implementation of necessary structural improvements 
and consolidation of dangerous pathogen collections to reduce the 
number of sites in a given country storing pathogens.

Project: Cooperative Biological Research; 
Description: Engages former BW scientists in peaceful pursuits in order 
to prevent the proliferation of BW expertise to terrorist groups and 
rogue states. The United States works with institutes and scientists 
employed in legitimate research to develop collaborative projects 
involving dangerous pathogens for prophylactic, preventive, or other 
peaceful purposes.

Project: BW Threat Agent Detection and Response; 
Description: Will promote biosecurity and biosafety at biological 
facilities in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan by strengthening dangerous 
pathogen detection and response networks, enabling discovery of the 
diversion or accidental release of biological materials, and removing 
pathogens from existing field stations by safely and securely 
transporting and consolidating them in central labs.

Project: Caspian Sea Maritime Interdiction; 
Description: Seeks to provide Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan with a 
comprehensive capability for WMD detection and interdiction of illicit 
trafficking in WMD-related materials and components along the maritime 
borders of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan and the Caspian Sea. 

Project: Uzbekistan Portal Monitors; 
Description: Provides a comprehensive nuclear detection and 
interdiction capability of illicit trafficking in WMD-related materials 
at key ports of entry.

Project: Ukraine Land Border Proliferation Prevention; 
Description: Provides Ukraine, in conjunction with DOE's Second Line of 
Defense, with a comprehensive capability for nuclear detection and 
interdiction of illicit trafficking in WMD-related materials along the 
Ukraine/ Moldova border.

Project: Defense and Military Contacts; 
Description: Expands contacts between defense establishments in the 
former Soviet Union in order to stem the proliferation of WMD, support 
the implementation of new strategic frameworks, and increase U.S. 
access by strengthening defense partnerships. Events will include, 
among other things, exchange visits of senior and midlevel officers, 
combined military exercises, conferences, and seminars.

Source: GAO summary of DOD threat reduction projects.

[End of table] 

Table 4: Department of Energy Nonproliferation Projects within Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation: 

Project: Global Radiological Threat Reduction; 
Description: Secures radiological sources no longer needed in the 
United States and locate, identify, recover, consolidate, and enhance 
the security of radioactive materials outside the United States.

Project: Global Nuclear Material Threat Reduction; 
Description: Eliminates the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) in 
civilian nuclear facilities around the world by converting research 
reactors to the use of low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel, returns U.S.-
origin HEU and LEU spent fuel to the United States from U.S.-supplied 
research reactors around the world, returns Russian-origin fresh and 
spent HEU fuel to Russia from Russian-supplied research reactors around 
the world, secures plutonium-bearing spent nuclear fuel from the BN-350 
fast breeder reactor in Kazakhstan, and recovers nuclear materials at 
vulnerable locations throughout the world.

Project: Proliferation Detection Project; 
Description: Develops advanced remote sensing and ground-based 
technologies, in support of other agencies, to address problems related 
to detection, location, and analysis of foreign weapons programs.

Project: Nuclear Explosion Monitoring Project; 
Description: Develops satellite and ground-based technologies to detect 
nuclear test explosions.

Project: HEU Transparency Implementation Project; 
Description: Monitors Russian uranium processing facilities to provide 
assurance that LEU sold to the United States for civilian nuclear power 
plants under the 1993 HEU Purchase Agreement is derived from weapons-
usable HEU removed from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons.

Project: Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production Project; 
Description: Provides replacement fossil-fuel energy that will allow 
Russia to shutdown its three remaining weapons-grade plutonium 
production reactors.

Project: International Emergency Management Project; 
Description: Assists foreign governments and international 
organizations in the development of emergency policy and preparedness 
infrastructure, emergency operations facilities, emergency procedures, 
exercise programs, and technical and training assistance.

Project: Nonproliferation Policy Project; 
Description: Works to develop U.S. policy options and technical 
measures for use with foreign governments to promote safe, secure 
nuclear reductions and transparent monitoring of nuclear warheads, 
fissile material, and associated facilities; 
to strengthen regional security in order to reduce states' incentives 
to obtain WMD; 
and to strengthen global nonproliferation regimes. Works with DOE/NNSA 
and National Laboratories to ensure compliance with applicable 
nonproliferation treaties and agreements.

Project: Export Control Policy and Cooperation Project; 
Description: Regulates the use and supply of technologies that could 
contribute to the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons 
as well as missile systems for the delivery of such weapons.

Project: International Safeguards Project; 
Description: Develops and delivers technology applications to 
strengthen capabilities to detect and verify undeclared nuclear 
programs; enhances the physical protection and proper accounting of 
nuclear material; and assists foreign national partners to meet 
safeguards commitments.

Project: Russian Transition Initiatives Project; 
Description: Redirects WMD scientists to peaceful, civilian employment.

Project: Nuclear Warhead Protection Project; 
Description: Provides material protection, control, and accounting 
upgrades to enhance the security of Navy HEU fuel and nuclear 
material.

Project: Weapons Material Protection Project; 
Description: Provides material protection, control, and accounting 
upgrades to nuclear weapons, uranium enrichment, and material 
processing and storage sites.

Project: Material Consolidation and Civilian Sites Project; 
Description: Enhances the security of proliferation-attractive nuclear 
material in Russia by supporting material protection, control, and 
accounting upgrade projects at Russian civilian nuclear facilities.

Project: National Infrastructure and Sustainability Project; 
Description: Develops national and regional resources in the Russian 
Federation to help establish and sustain effective operation of 
upgraded nuclear material protection, control, and accounting systems.

Project: Second Line of Defense and Megaports Initiative Project; 
Description: Negotiates cooperative efforts with the Russian Federation 
and other key countries to strengthen the capability of enforcement 
officials to detect and deter illicit trafficking of nuclear and 
radiological material across international borders. This is 
accomplished through the detection, location, and identification of 
nuclear and nuclear-related materials, the development of response 
procedures and capabilities, and the establishment of required 
infrastructure elements to support the control of these materials.

Project: Surplus U.S. HEU Disposition Project; 
Description: Disposes of surplus domestic HEU by down-blending it.

Project: Surplus U.S. Plutonium Disposition Project; 
Description: Disposes of surplus domestic plutonium by fabricating it 
into mixed oxide fuel for irradiation in existing, commercial nuclear 
reactors.

Project: Surplus Russian Plutonium Disposition Project; 
Description: Supports Russia's efforts to dispose of its weapons-grade 
plutonium by working with the international community to help pay for 
Russia's program.

Source: GAO summary of DOE nonproliferation projects.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix II: DOD and DOE Metrics Used to Assess the Performance of 
Threat Reduction and Nonproliferation Programs: 

DOD and DOE assess the performance of their threat reduction and 
nonproliferation programs. They establish goals and assess progress 
toward meeting these goals using performance metrics. Table 5 lists 
these DOD and DOE goals and metrics.

Table 5: DOD and DOE Performance Metrics: 

DOD: 

Goal: Eliminate Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, Submarine Launched 
Ballistic Missiles, and nuclear-capable Air to Surface Missiles; 
Metric: 1. Number of missiles eliminated.

Goal: Eliminate silos, rail/road-mobile launchers, ballistic missile 
submarine launch tubes, and bombers; 
Metric: 2. Numbers of launchers eliminated; 
Metric: 3. Percentage of design completed; 
Metric: 4. Percentage of construction completed; 
Metric: 5. Projected total program cost.

Goal: Eliminate Former Soviet Union (FSU) nuclear, chemical weapon, and 
biological weapon infrastructure at "n" sites; 
Metric: 6. Number of sites.

Goal: Conduct vulnerability assessments to consolidate and secure FSU 
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons facilities and materials; 
Metric: 7. Number of sites.

Goal: Develop site designs to consolidate and secure FSU nuclear and 
biological weapons facilities and materials; 
Metric: 8. Number of sites.

Goal: Complete site upgrades to consolidate and secure FSU nuclear, 
chemical, and biological weapons facilities and materials; 
Metric: 9. Number of sites.

Goal: Construct a Fissile Missile Storage Facility (FMSF) to provide 
safe and secure storage for fissile material from dismantled warheads; 
Metric: 10. Percentage of FMSF completed without transparency; 
Metric: 11. FMSF transparency system; 
Metric: 12. Projected total program cost.

DOE: 

Goal: Develop new technologies to improve U.S. capabilities to detect 
and monitor nuclear weapons production and testing; 
Metric: 1. Number of advanced radiation and remote sensing technologies 
developed and evaluated; 
Metric: 2. Number of advanced technologies and operational systems 
(e.g., satellite payloads and seismic station calibration data sets) 
delivered to U.S. national security users; 
Metric: 3. Number of professional papers/exchanges presented, each 
representing Science and Technology knowledge and U.S. leadership in 
program area; 
Metric: 4. Annual percentage of all active research and development 
projects for which an independent research and development merit 
assessment has been completed within the last 3 years.

Goal: Detect, prevent, and reverse the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction (WMD) materials, technology, and expertise, and to 
strengthen the nonproliferation regime; 
Metric: 5. Annual number of safeguards or physical protection courses 
conducted; 
Metric: 6. Annual percentage of U.S. exports reviewed for proliferation 
concern; 
Metric: 7. Cumulative number of cooperative agreement actions 
completed; 
Metric: 8. Cumulative kilograms of HEU purchased and delivered.

Goal: Prevent nuclear terrorism by working in Russia and other regions 
of concern to (1) secure and eliminate vulnerable nuclear weapons and 
weapons-usable material; (2) locate, consolidate, and secure 
radiological materials that can be used in a dirty bomb; and (3) 
install detection equipment at border crossings and Mega-Seaports to 
prevent and detect the illicit transfer of nuclear material; 
Metric: 9. Percentage of 39 Russian Navy warhead sites secured; 
Metric: 10. Percentage of 25 Russian Strategic Rocket Forces sites 
secured; 
Metric: 11. Percentage of 600 metric tons (MT) of weapons-usable 
nuclear material secured; 
Metric: 12. Percentage of 27 MTs of HEU converted to LEU; 
Metric: 13. Cumulative number of Second Line of Defense sites with 
nuclear detection equipment installed; 
Metric: 14. Annual percentage of buildings scheduled for completion of 
security upgrades in a year that are done on time.

Goal: Prevent adverse migration of WMD expertise by engaging weapons 
experts in peaceful efforts and by helping to downsize the Russian 
nuclear weapons complex; 
Metric: 15. Annual number of former Soviet weapons scientists, 
engineers, and technicians engaged; 
Metric: 16. Cumulative number of technologies commercialized or 
businesses created; 
Metric: 17. Cumulative percentage of nuclear complex reduction targets 
completed at six weapons facilities; 
Metric: 18. Annual percentage of non-U.S. government funding 
contributions obtained.

Goal: Assurance that the LEU being purchased under the 1993 U.S./
Russian HEU Purchase Agreement is derived from HEU extracted from 
dismantled Russian nuclear weapons, by developing and implementing 
mutually agreeable transparency measures to ensure that the 500 MT of 
HEU covered by the agreement is permanently down blended and eliminated 
from Russian inventory; 
Metric: 19. Number of Blend-Down Monitoring Systems operational and 
the annual percentage of operation during the HEU blend-down process; 
Metric: 20. Percentage completed of the 24 annually allowed Special 
Monitoring Visits to the four Russian HEU-to- LEU processing 
facilities; 
Metric: 21. Percentage of the year that the on-site Transparency 
Monitoring Office is staffed at the Ural Electrochemical Integrated 
Plant.

Goal: Reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism by facilitating shutdown 
of the three remaining weapons-grade plutonium production reactors in 
Russia through (1) construction of a new fossil-fuel plant, (2) 
refurbish an existing fossil-fuel power plant, and (3) execution of a 
nuclear safety upgrades project to improve reactor safety pending 
shutdown of the reactors; 
Metric: 22. Percentage of progress toward constructing a fossil plant 
in Seversk; 
Metric: 23. Percentage of progress toward constructing a fossil plant 
in Zheleznogorsk facilitating shutdown of one weapons-grade plutonium 
production reactor; 
Metric: 24. Percentage of progress toward completing interim safety 
upgrades to the three operating Russian plutonium production reactors; 
Metric: 25. Amount of Russian Federation weapons-grade plutonium 
production eliminated annually, and cumulatively, from the 1.2 MT per 
year baseline.

Goal: Eliminate surplus Russian plutonium and surplus U.S. plutonium 
and HEU; 
Metric: 26. Percentage of the design and construction of the Pit 
Disassembly and Conversion Facility completed; 
Metric: 27. Percentage of the design and construction of the mixed 
oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility completed; 
Metric: 28. Amount of HEU shipped to the United States Enrichment 
Corporation for down blending; 
Metric: 29. Amount of off-specification HEU down blended; 
Metric: 30. Russianize the design and construct the MOX Fuel Facility 
in Russia.

Goal: Identify, secure, remove, and/or facilitate the disposition of 
vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials and equipment around the 
world; 
Metric: 31. Cumulative number of vulnerable radiological sites secured 
internationally; 
Metric: 32. Cumulative number of U.S. excess and unwanted sealed 
sources recovered; 
Metric: 33. Cumulative number of targeted research/test reactors 
converted from HEU to LEU fuel; 
Metric: 34. Cumulative kilograms of HEU fresh fuel and spent fuel from 
Soviet- supplied research reactors repatriated to Russia; 
Metric: 35. Cumulative number of fuel assemblies containing U.S.-
origin spent fuel returned from foreign research reactors.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD and DOE data.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: DOD, DOE, and State Department Projects Addressing 
Similar Missions: 

DOD and DOE and State have projects in three areas that address similar 
missions in the FSU. These areas are the employment of former 
biological weapons scientists to prevent the proliferation of their 
expertise, improvement of security at sites where Russian nuclear 
warheads are stored, and the enhancement of countries' ability to 
secure their borders against the smuggling of WMD materials. Tables 6, 
7, and 8 show the different projects, funding and countries served for 
all three agencies and areas.

Table 6: DOD and DOE Warhead Security Projects: 

Dollars in millions.

Site Security Enhancements; 
Lead agency: DOD; 
Description: This project is designed to enhance the safety and 
security of Russian nuclear weapons storage sites by conducting 
vulnerability assessments and providing equipment such as fences and 
sensor systems; 
2004 funding: $$47.9; 
Location: Russia.

Warhead Security Program; 
Lead agency: DOE; 
Description: DOE is enhancing the security around some strategic rocket 
forces sites and some Navy sites. Threat assessments are conducted at 
the sites and security equipment is provided; 
2004 funding: $107.0; 
Location: Russia.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD and DOE data.

[End of table]

Table 7: DOD, DOE, and State Biological Weapons Scientist Employment 
Projects: 

Dollars in millions.

Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention (BWPP) Program's 
Cooperative Biological Research (CBR) Project; 
Lead agency: DOD; 
Description: The CBR project engages former biological weapons (BW) 
scientists in peaceful pursuits in order to prevent the proliferation 
of BW expertise to terrorist groups and rogue states; 
2004 funding: $$6.1; 
Location: Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and soon-to-be Georgia.

Russian Transition Initiative (RTI) Program's; 
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) Project; 
Lead agency: DOE; 
Description: The IPP project engage scientists in the FSU in peaceful 
commercial activities; 
2004 funding: $23.3; 
Location: Russia and the FSU.

Office of Proliferation Threat Reduction Program's Bio-Chem Redirect 
Program; 
Lead agency: State Department; 
Description: The Bio-Chem Redirect Program funds efforts to redirect 
former biological and chemical weapons scientists via civilian research 
projects in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, Department of Agriculture, and Environmental Protection 
Agency; 
2004 funding: $19.9; 
Location: Russia and the FSU.

BioIndustry Initiative; 
Lead agency: State Department; 
Description: The initiative seeks to engage and strategically transform 
former Soviet biological production facilities, their technology and 
expertise for sustainable, commercial, and peaceful enterprises; 
2004 funding: $2.0; 
Location: The FSU.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD, DOE, and State data.

[End of table]

Table 8: Overview of Border Security Projects: 

Dollars in millions.

Project: Lead agency: Description: 2004 funding: $[Empty].

Second Line of Defense Program; 
Lead agency: DOE; 
Description: The Second Line of Defense Program seeks to provide 
detection equipment to combat nuclear material smuggling; 
2004 funding: $$52.0; 
Location: FSU states and other countries.

WMD Proliferation Prevention Initiative; 
Lead agency: DOD; 
Description: Bolsters states' ability to prevent proliferation of WMD 
across their borders, DOD will provide equipment and logistics support, 
training, and other support to those agencies of recipient governments 
vested with the authority to monitor borders for illegal transport of 
WMD or related materials; 
2004 funding: $29.0; 
Location: Non-Russian FSU states.

International Counter-proliferation Program; 
Lead agency: DOD; 
Description: Provides a series of training courses and equipment to 
counter and respond to WMD-related incidents in-country and at borders, 
this is a DOD coordinated effort with the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation and U.S. Customs designed to detect, deter, and prevent 
smuggling of WMD and related materials; 
2004 funding: $10.0; 
Location: The FSU, Baltic states, and Eastern Europe.

Export Control and Border Security; 
Lead agency: State Department; 
Description: Provides technical assistance, develops training
materials, and provides support to enhance countries' export control 
and related border security capabilities; 
2004 funding: $35.8; 
Location: The FSU, Baltic states, and Eastern Europe. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD, DOE, and State data.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Department of Energy: 
National Nuclear Security Administration: 
Washington, DC 20585:

JAN 11 2005:

Joseph A. Christoff: 
Director:
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Mr. Christoff:

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) appreciates the 
opportunity to have reviewed the Government Accountability Office's 
(GAO) draft report GAO-05-127, "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: 
Nonproliferation Programs Need Better Integration." While we agree with 
the report and the corresponding recommendations, NNSA is submitting 
the attached comments to clarify or correct information contained in 
the draft report.

NNSA is also aware that the Department of Defense provided comments to 
the draft report. Since there is a recommendation for the Secretaries 
of Defense and Energy, we believe it is important for GAO to know that 
NNSA agrees with the Department of Defense's response that they 
submitted to GAO.

Should you have any questions related to this response, please contact 
Richard Speidel, Director, Policy and Internal Controls Management. He 
may be contacted at 202-586-5009.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Michael C. Kane: 
Associate Administrator for Management and Administration:

Attachment:

cc: Paul Longsworth, Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation: 
Robert Braden, Senior Procurement Executive: 
Karen Boardman, Director, Service Center:

Comments on Draft GAO Report: Weapons of Mass Destruction: 
Nonproliferation Programs Need Better Integration:

Page 12, chart and paragraph immediately below:

Rationale: accuracy: Change office of International Nuclear Safety and 
Cooperation to Office of Nuclear Risk Reduction:

Rationale: accuracy: insert after "technologies and expertise..." 
"eliminate or secure inventories of surplus nuclear materials usable 
for nuclear weapons."

Page 21:

Delete last sentence of first paragraph "Other working group 
participants..." Rationale: It is contradicting and is not "sourced. " 
Also, it is a truism that "information sharing could be improved, " so 
there's no need to say it. It's obvious and true in every setting no 
matter how good the working relationships are: Insert after "such as 
holding interagency meetings" the following statements: "For example, 
coordination and information sharing have improved through the practice 
of DoD and DOE including representatives from the other agency on each 
other's bilateral forums with the Russians (e.g., DoD now sends a 
representative to DOE's Joint Coordinating Group, and DOE sends a 
representative to DoD's Implementation Working Group). Moreover, a 
number of issues - ranging from security system design concepts to 
sustainability strategies - have been resolved outside formal work 
settings during frequent technical exchanges held jointly by DOE and 
DoD."

Page 33:

Rationale: accuracy: Amend language in Global Nuclear Material Threat 
Reduction description box to state: "Eliminate the use of high enriched 
uranium (HEU) in civilian nuclear facilities around the world by 
converting research reactors to the use of low enriched uranium (LEU) 
fuel; return US-origin HEU and LEU spent fuel to the US from US-
supplied research reactors around the world; return Russian-origin 
fresh and spent HEU fuel to Russia from Russian-supplied research 
reactors around the world; secure plutonium-bearing spent nuclear fuel 
from the BN-350 fast breeder reactor in Kazakhstan; and recover nuclear 
materials at vulnerable locations throughout the world."

Rationale: accuracy: Amend language in HEU Transparency Project 
description box to read: "Monitors Russian uranium processing 
facilities to provide assurance that low enriched uranium (LEU) sold to 
the U.S. for civilian nuclear power plants under the 1993 HEU Purchase 
Agreement is derived from weapons-usable HEU removed from dismantled 
Russian nuclear weapons."

Rationale: The Nonproliferation Policy project really shouldn't be 
included at all since it is a policy office. However, if GAO insists in 
including it in the final report, it should be amended for accuracy 
reasons. The description should read: "Works to develop U.S. policy 
options and technical measures for use with foreign governments to 
promote safe, secure nuclear reductions and transparent monitoring of 
nuclear warheads, fissile material and associated facilities; to 
strengthen regional security in order to reduce states' incentives to 
obtain WMD; and to strengthen global nonproliferation regimes. Works 
with DOE/NNSA and National Laboratories to ensure compliance with 
applicable nonproliferation treaties and agreements."

RTI:

Rationale: accuracy: Amend description to read: "Redirects WMD 
scientists to peaceful, civilian employment."

Pages 35 - 37:

Rationale: accuracy/incorporate updated information: Table labeled 
"DOD and DOE Performance Metrics" delete metric #5, 14, 33, 34, 35, and 
the goal associated with these last three metrics. Add the following 
goal:

* Goal: Identify, secure, remove and/or facilitate the disposition of 
vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials and equipment around the 
world.

2) Cumulative number of vulnerable radiological sites secured 
internationally; 

3) Cumulative number of US excess and unwanted sealed sources 
recovered; 

4) Cumulative number of targeted research/test reactors converted from 
HEU to LEU fuel; 

5) Cumulative kgs of HEU fresh fuel and spent fuel from Soviet-supplied 
research reactors repatriated to Russia; 

6) Cumulative number of fuel assemblies containing US-origin spent fuel 
returned from foreign research reactors.  

[End of section]

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: 
POLICY:
2000 DEFENSE PENTAGON: 
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-2000:

Mr. Joseph A. Christoff:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:

JAN 07 2005

Dear Mr. Christoff:

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the draft GAO 
report, "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: Nonproliferation Programs Need 
Better Integration," dated November 30, 2004 (GAO Code 320255/GAO-05-
157). We have reviewed the draft report and are providing the following 
comments:

GAO Recommendation (1): the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, in 
consultation with relevant agencies, develop an integrated plan for all 
U.S. threat reduction and nonproliferation programs.

* DoD concurs with the view that better integrated threat reduction and 
nonproliferation programs are in the U.S. national security interest, 
and believes the National Security Council (NSC) staff plays a useful 
role assisting in the coordination of U.S. threat reduction and 
proliferation prevention programs. NSC staff-developed guidelines for 
warhead security, biological weapons (BW) threat reduction, and other 
nonproliferation programs have facilitated sound interagency 
coordination.

The NSC's Proliferation Strategy Policy Coordinating Committee is 
chaired by the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director 
for Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation and Homeland Defense; 
it includes all relevant U.S. Government agencies; and it has been 
charged with establishing priorities for U.S. nonproliferation efforts 
in the former Soviet states, coordinating the implementation of those 
efforts, and recommending overall policies and budget options to the 
President through the NSC Deputies and Principals Committees.

GAO Recommendation (2): the National Security Council issue clear 
guidance for the coordination of border security programs.

* DoD concurs with this recommendation.

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to this report and will 
provide additional administrative comments directly to the author. My 
point of contact for this report is James H. Reid at (703) 696-7737, 
james.reid@osd.mil.

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Lisa Bronson:

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, 
Technology Security Policy and Counterproliferation:

cc: ATSD (NCB) Director, DTRA: 

[End of section]

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Dave Maurer (202) 512-9627 F. James Shafer (202) 512-6002: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition, Hynek Kalkus, Wyatt R. Hundrup, Nanette J. Ryen, William 
Lanouette, Dorian L. Herring, Stacy Edwards, Lynn Cothern, Etana 
Finkler, Judy Pagano, and Ernie Jackson made significant contributions 
to this report.

FOOTNOTES

[1] S. 2980, 108TH Congress, 2ND Session.

[2] Public Law 108-136, Section 3611.

[3] Other calls for governmentwide planning include the President's 
National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, the Baker-
Cutler Commission, and the Commission to Assess the Organization of the 
Federal Government to Combat the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass 
Destruction (the Deutch Commission).

[4] GAO, Weapons of Mass Destruction: Additional Russian Cooperation 
Needed to Facilitate U.S. Efforts to Improve Security at Russian Sites, 
GAO-03-482 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 24, 2003).

[5] Missiles, bombers, and missile carrying submarines may deliver WMD.

[6] NNSA also manages DOE's nuclear weapons and naval reactors 
programs.

[7] In 2004, DOD programs were appropriated $451 million and DOE 
programs were appropriated $1.33 billion, which includes funds for 
programs in the United States, the FSU, and countries outside the FSU. 
Although the DOD and DOE budget data are being used for background 
purposes only, we assessed the reliability of these data and found they 
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

[8] Public Law 102-511.

[9] A similar center was also established in Ukraine.

[10] The 2001 review focused on programs implemented in Russia; the 
2002 review focused on programs in non-Russian FSU states.

[11] Other agencies involved in threat reduction and nonproliferation 
programs include the Departments of State, Commerce, and Homeland 
Security.

[12] The agencies have a variety of planning documents--such as 
strategies, annual plans, and multiyear project plans--which we refer 
to collectively as strategic plans.

[13] The CTR Policy Office is located within the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Policy. 

[14] GAO, Weapons of Mass Destruction: Status of the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Program, GAO/NSIAD-96-222 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 1996).

[15] Department of Defense Inspector General, Cooperative Threat 
Reduction: Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Liquid Propellant 
Disposition Project, Report No. D-2002-154 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 
2002) and Cooperative Threat Reduction: Cooperative Threat Reduction 
Construction Projects, Report No. D-2004-039 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 
18, 2003).

[16] Weapons-grade uranium is also known as highly enriched uranium.

[17] Uranium that cannot be used in weapons is also known as low 
enriched uranium.

[18] GAO, Nuclear Nonproliferation: DOE's Efforts to Assist Weapons 
Scientists in Russia's Nuclear Cities Face Challenges, GAO-01-429 
(Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2001).

[19] Public Law 107-228, Section 1332.

[20] Public Law 107-107, Section 1205; Public Law 107-314, Section 
1205.

[21] Public Law 107-228, Section 1309.

[22] The legislation calls for a report to be submitted to the Congress 
120 days after each presidential inauguration.

[23] GAO, Nuclear Nonproliferation: Coordination of U.S. Programs 
Designed to Reduce the Threat Posed by Weapons of Mass Destruction, 
GAO-02-180T (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2001).

[24] For our assessment of the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of 
Mass Destruction of 2002, see Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of 
Selected Characteristics in National Strategies Related to Terrorism, 
GAO-04-408T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004).

[25] Dirty bombs are designed to disperse radioactive material by 
packaging explosives, such as dynamite, with radioactive material.

[26] GAO-03-482.

[27] Eurasia is defined as including the following countries: Armenia, 
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, 
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. 

[28] In commenting on a draft of this report, the State Department 
informed us that as of December 6, 2004, its Nonproliferation Bureau 
established a schedule for regular meetings of the interagency working 
group on border security issues. These meetings are scheduled to be 
held every 2 months during calendar year 2005.

[29] GAO, Nuclear Nonproliferation: U.S. Efforts to Help Other 
Countries Combat Nuclear Smuggling Need Strengthened Coordination and 
Planning, GAO-02-426 (Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2002).

[30] Portal monitors are stationary equipment designed to detect 
radioactive materials carried by pedestrians or vehicles.

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: