This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-521
entitled 'Department of State: Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism,
Demining, and Related Programs Follow Legal Authority, but Some
Activities Need Reassessment' which was released on April 30, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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 the Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate:
April 2004:
Department of State:
Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs
Follow Legal Authority, but Some Activities Need Reassessment:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-521]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-521, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of State requested $415 million to fund programs in the
Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR)
appropriations account for fiscal year 2005. Interest has been
expressed in learning about whether programs are being implemented in
accord with the law, and in the extent to which programs use experts
hired on a contractual basis.
GAO was asked to determine (1) the legal authorizations for the
programs and the extent to which programs are implemented in accord
with these authorizations and (2) the extent to which program
management and implementation use outside experts.
What GAO Found:
The seven major programs funded through the Department of State’s
Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs
appropriations account are authorized by law and engage in activities
that are in accord with their authority. However, the Nonproliferation
and Disarmament Fund (NDF) engages in activities that, while authorized
by law, appear to be inconsistent with expectations about the scope of
the program’s mission. Past appropriations committee reports and
testimony by the Secretary of State indicated that the NDF is designed
to respond to urgent, unanticipated nonproliferation events of
immediate concern to the United States. However, at least half of the
NDF’s $35 million budget request for fiscal year 2004 and 57 percent of
the $34.5 million request for fiscal year 2005 were designated for
longer-term activities preplanned through the annual budget process,
including expansion of an export control system called Tracker.
Furthermore, the Tracker system has been developed and deployed
independently of another Department of State program, the Export
Control and Related Border Security Assistance Program, which supports
the development of export control capabilities in foreign countries.
Currently, the Tracker system is not integrated into the export control
assessments and activities of this program or the export control
activities of other Departments, such as the Department of Commerce.
Program management offices, which range in size from 1 to 26 staff,
average about 80 percent federal employees and 20 percent experts hired
on a contractual basis. In contrast, projects funded by these programs
are implemented by experts on contract from other U.S. government
agencies (who may also be federal employees), outside contractors, or
international and nongovernmental organizations.
The Department of State concurred with the need to integrate export
control activities, but took exception to other issues regarding the
Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretaries of State and Commerce evaluate the
extent of integration of export control activities of the
Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund and the Export Control and
Related Border Security Assistance Program.
GAO also includes two matters for congressional consideration:
* conditioning future funding for the Tracker export control system
until the Secretaries of State and Commerce have completed the
evaluation and
* clarifying through legislation the scope of the NDF’s activities.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-521.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Joseph Christoff,
202-512-8979, and ChristoffJ@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Program Activities Reflect Legislative Authorizations, but One
Program's Activities Appear to Go Beyond Expectations for the Scope of
Its Mission:
Program Management Relies Less on Contracted Experts Than Project
Implementation Does:
Conclusions:
Recommendation:
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix: I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix: II: Nonproliferation Programs Funded through the Department of
State's NADR Account:
Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund:
Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance Program:
Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection Program:
Additional Nonproliferation Programs Funded through the NADR Account:
Appendix: III: Anti-terrorism Programs Funded through the Department of
State's NADR Account:
Anti-terrorism Assistance Program:
Terrorist Interdiction Program:
Additional Anti-terrorism Activities Funded through the NADR Account:
Appendix: IV: Regional Stability and Humanitarian Assistance Programs
Funded through the Department of State's NADR Account:
Humanitarian Demining Program:
Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction Program:
Additional Regional Stability and Humanitarian Assistance Program
Funded through the NADR Account:
Appendix: V: Comments from the Department of State:
Tables Tables:
Table 1: Appropriations for the Major NADR Programs, Fiscal Years 1999
through 2005:
Table 2: Other Activities Funded through the NADR Account, Fiscal Years
1999 through 2005:
Table 3: Funding for the Tracker Export Control System, Fiscal Years
1999 through 2005:
Table 4: Full-time Federal Employees and Contract Personnel in Program
Management for the Major NADR Programs, Fiscal Year 2004:
Table 5: Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund:
Table 6: Funding from the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund by Type
of Activity, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
Table 7: The Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance
Program:
Table 8: Funding from the Export Control and Related Border Security
Assistance Program, by Country, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003:
Table 9: Funding from the Export Control and Related Border Security
Assistance Program, by Type of Activity, Fiscal Years 2000 through
2003:
Table 10: Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection Program:
Table 11: Funding for the International Science Centers, Fiscal Years
1999 through 2003:
Table 12: Funding of Bio-Chem Redirection Projects by Implementing
Agency, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
Table 13: Anti-terrorism Assistance Program:
Table 14: Distribution of Anti-terrorism Assistance Program Funding by
Country/Region, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
Table 15: Distribution of Anti-terrorism Assistance Program Funding, by
Activity, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
Table 16: Terrorist Interdiction Program:
Table 17: Terrorist Interdiction Program Funding Estimates, by Country,
Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003:
Table 18: Humanitarian Demining Program:
Table 19: Funding by the Humanitarian Demining Program, by Country/
Region and Type of Activity, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
Table 20: Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction Program:
Table 21: Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction Program Funding, by
Country, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2003:
Abbreviations:
NADR: Nonproliferaton, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs
Account:
NDF: Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund:
Letter April 30, 2004:
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar:
Chairman:
Committee on Foreign Relations:
United States Senate:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Department of State's Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining,
and Related Programs (NADR) account funds programs that are designed to
advance U.S. national interests in a variety of areas. Those programs
address the spread of weapons of mass destruction, assist other
countries in fighting terrorism, and support humanitarian assistance
programs such as demining. Administration budget requests for fiscal
year 2005 include $415 million for these programs. You expressed
interest in learning about whether the major programs funded through
the account are being implemented in accord with their legal
authorizations and in the extent to which these programs use experts
hired on a contractual basis. In response, we determined (1) the legal
authorizations for the programs and the extent to which the types of
activities funded are in accord with program authorizations and (2) the
extent to which program management and project implementation use
experts hired on a contractual basis.
To address these objectives, we focused our audit work on seven major
nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, and regional stability and
humanitarian assistance programs that are funded through the NADR
account.[Footnote 1] We obtained information and documentation on
program authorizations and activities, program funding histories, and
program management and implementation, including the use of outside
experts. We also met with the officials responsible for managing the
programs to discuss these issues. We reviewed the authorizing statutes
for each program and compared those provisions with the types of
activities supported by the programs. We reviewed the general
reliability of the project data and found the data sufficiently
reliable for the purpose of representing program activities. We
conducted this review from August 2003 to March 2004 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
You also asked us to determine how national security goals are
incorporated into program budget planning; the nature and extent of
coordination with other U.S. government nonproliferation, anti-
terrorism, and regional stability and humanitarian assistance programs;
and the effectiveness of the major programs. By agreement with your
staff, we will address those issues in subsequent reports.
Results in Brief:
The seven major programs funded through the NADR account are authorized
by law and engage in activities that are consistent with their
authority. For example, the Anti-terrorism Assistance Program
implements its authorization to assist countries to deter terrorists by
providing training and equipment in such areas as bomb detection and
disposal, physical security for personnel, and law enforcement
management. The Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund (NDF) implements
its nonproliferation responsibilities through activities such as the
removal and/or destruction of weapons and the conversion of weapons
testing facilities. However, the NDF also engages in activities that,
while authorized by law, appear to be inconsistent with the expectation
that the NDF provide a flexible funding source to respond to urgent
nonproliferation activities. House Appropriations Committee reports
between 1996 and 2000 and an Appropriations Conference Committee report
in 1997 state that the NDF is designed to respond to urgent,
unanticipated nonproliferation activities of immediate concern to the
United States and that longer-term programmatic activities, such as
export controls, should be funded elsewhere. That mission to respond to
urgent, unanticipated events was reiterated by the Secretary of State
in 2001 in testimony before a Senate committee, and is included in the
NDF's own mission statement. Nevertheless, at least half of the NDF's
$35 million budget request for fiscal year 2004 and 57 percent of the
$34.5 million request for fiscal year 2005 were designated for longer-
term activities preplanned through the annual budget process. Recently,
commitments to longer-term preplanned activities have resulted in the
NDF's need to curtail planned expenditures to release funding to meet
the urgent needs of Libya's decision to divest itself of weapons of
mass destruction. In addition, the NDF has supported the longer-term
development of an automated export control system called Tracker that
has not been coordinated with the export control assistance program
funded by the Department of State's:
Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance Program.[Footnote
2] As a result, the Department risks deploying unintegrated systems in
countries that have sought U.S. assistance to improve their export
control capabilities.
While programs funded through the NADR account are managed primarily by
a staff of U.S. government employees rather than experts hired on a
contractual basis, projects funded by these programs are implemented by
outside experts, some of whom are also federal employees from other
agencies who are contracted to implement projects. Program management
offices range in size from 1 person to 26 people (where 2 programs have
been merged), with an average size of about 17 people. The program
management offices are staffed, on average, by about 80 percent full-
time federal employees and about 20 percent experts hired on a
contractual basis. Program management staff develop projects to
accomplish program objectives. In contrast to program management staff,
projects funded by these programs are implemented by experts, some of
whom may be federal employees on contract through other U.S. government
agencies, while some are outside contractors, or international and
nongovernmental organizations. When projects are implemented by experts
from other U.S. government agencies, funds are generally transferred
from the Department of State's program to these agencies through
Interagency Acquisition Agreements or Memorandums of Agreement/
Understanding. The use of contract personnel on specific engagements or
projects can range from one expert to as many as several hundred.
Project length varies depending on individual project requirements.
In this report, we are recommending that the Secretaries of State and
Commerce evaluate the extent to which the export control activities of
the NDF and the Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance
Program are integrated and thus ensure that recipient countries are
receiving comprehensive assistance to improve their export control
systems.
In this report, we also include two matters for congressional
consideration. The Congress may want to consider conditioning future
year funding requests for the Tracker export control system until the
Secretaries of State and Commerce have determined whether the two
systems should be integrated. The Congress may also want to consider
clarifying through legislation its intent with respect to the scope and
direction of the NDF's activities.
We received written comments from the Department of State, which have
been reprinted in appendix V. The Department of State concurred with
our recommendation that the Tracker export control system be integrated
with the export control activities of the Department of State's Export
Control and Related Border Security Assistance Program. The Department
of State took exception, however, to characterizing the NDF's
preplanned activities as the "earmarking" of funds, the reference to
the NDF as a "contingency fund," and our discussion of export control
activities as appearing to be beyond expectations of the scope of the
program's mission. However, through its budget justifications, the
Department of State informed the Congress that it planned to expend
appropriations from this fund on some longer-term activities, including
export controls, that appear to be outside the expected scope of
program activities. Further, the characterization of the NDF as a
contingency fund came from testimony of the Secretary of State to a
Senate Appropriations subcommittee. Finally, the 1997 conference
committee report language was clear about expecting export control
activity to be funded elsewhere. State also provided technical comments
that have been incorporated into the report as appropriate. We also
sent a copy of our draft report to the Department of Commerce, which
stated that it had no comments.
Background:
In 1996, Congress established the NADR appropriations account in
response to the increased importance of nonproliferation and anti-
terrorism efforts and to give the executive branch more flexibility in
administering funds for these kinds of activities.[Footnote 3] While
some programs funded through the account have been recently
established--such as the Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction Program,
other programs were already in operation when the NADR account was
created, including the NDF. Programs funded through this account fall
under the jurisdiction of the Department of State and are grouped into
three categories: (1) Nonproliferation, (2) Anti-terrorism, and (3)
Regional Stability and Humanitarian Assistance.
There are three major nonproliferation programs:
* The NDF funds projects to prevent the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related materials.
* The Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance Program
assists other governments in implementing effective export control
systems to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
their missile delivery systems as well as conventional weapons.
* The Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection Program finances
civilian research by former Soviet nuclear, biological, and chemical
weapons scientists to provide incentives that would prevent them from
marketing their skills to other countries. The fiscal year 2005 budget
request refers to this program as the Nonproliferation of WMD (weapons
of mass destruction) Expertise Program.
There are two major anti-terrorism programs:
* The Anti-terrorism Assistance Program provides training to foreign
nationals in such areas as law enforcement, border control, protection
of critical infrastructure, and crisis management to develop and
sustain other countries' abilities to impede terrorist activities.
* The Terrorist Interdiction Program helps countries improve border
security through the provision of a computerized database that enables
border control officials to identify, detain, or track individuals of
interest.
Two major programs support regional stability and humanitarian
assistance:
* The Humanitarian Demining Program funds humanitarian assistance
programs that remove and destroy land mines and unexploded ordnance
from former combat areas.
* The Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction Program supports the
destruction worldwide of surplus and illicit stocks of military small
arms and light weapons that are easily transportable (e.g., small arms,
minor explosives, and hand-held missile systems).
Table 1 provides the appropriations history for these major programs
for fiscal years 1999 through 2005, as applicable.
Table 1: Appropriations for the Major NADR Programs, Fiscal Years 1999
through 2005:
Dollars in millions.
NADR program: Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund;
Fiscal year: 1999: $15;
Fiscal year: 2000: $15;
Fiscal year: 2001: $15;
Fiscal year: 2002: $14;
Fiscal year: 2003: $14.9;
Fiscal year: 2004: $30;
Fiscal year: 2005 (request): $34.5.
NADR program: Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance;
Fiscal year: 1999: $9[A];
Fiscal year: 2000: $14.5;
Fiscal year: 2001: $19.1;
Fiscal year: 2002: $41.7[A];
Fiscal year: 2003: $36;
Fiscal year: 2004: $36;
Fiscal year: 2005 (request): $38.
NADR program: Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection[B];
Fiscal year: 1999: $28.9;
Fiscal year: 2000: $78;
Fiscal year: 2001: $51;
Fiscal year: 2002: $82[A];
Fiscal year: 2003: $52;
Fiscal year: 2004: $50.5;
Fiscal year: 2005 (request): $50.5.
NADR program: Anti-terrorism Assistance;
Fiscal year: 1999: $41[A];
Fiscal year: 2000: $31;
Fiscal year: 2001: $38;
Fiscal year: 2002: $157.9[A];
Fiscal year: 2003: $90.6[A];
Fiscal year: 2004: $97;
Fiscal year: 2005 (request): $128.3.
NADR program: Terrorist Interdiction Program;
Fiscal year: 1999: $N/A;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.3;
Fiscal year: 2001: $4;
Fiscal year: 2002: $18[A];
Fiscal year: 2003: $5;
Fiscal year: 2004: $5;
Fiscal year: 2005 (request): $5.
NADR program: Humanitarian Demining Program;
Fiscal year: 1999: $35;
Fiscal year: 2000: $40;
Fiscal year: 2001: $39.9;
Fiscal year: 2002: $43[A];
Fiscal year: 2003: $49[A];
Fiscal year: 2004: $50;
Fiscal year: 2005 (request): $59.9.
NADR program: Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction Program;
Fiscal year: 1999: $N/A;
Fiscal year: 2000: $N/A;
Fiscal year: 2001: $2;
Fiscal year: 2002: $3;
Fiscal year: 2003: $3;
Fiscal year: 2004: $3;
Fiscal year: 2005 (request): $9.
Total;
Fiscal year: 1999: $128.9;
Fiscal year: 2000: $179.8;
Fiscal year: 2001: $169;
Fiscal year: 2002: $359.6;
Fiscal year: 2003: $250.5;
Fiscal year: 2004: $271.5;
Fiscal year: 2005 (request): $325.2.
Legend: N/A = not applicable.
Source: Department of State Congressional Budget Justifications for
fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
[A] This figure includes some supplemental appropriations.
[B] This program was fully funded through the Freedom Support Act for
fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and partially funded through that act in
fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
[End of table]
In addition to these major programs, the NADR account funds other
activities, including contributions to international organizations
that have a more specific focus. For example, the NADR account includes
funds that support other nonproliferation activities, including the
International Atomic Energy Agency and the International Monitoring
System. While some of these activities may have received significant
levels of appropriations, we did not conduct in depth review of these
activities because they were generally more focused in scope. State
officials, nevertheless, consider the funding and programmatic support
to the International Atomic Energy Agency to be one of their more
important nonproliferation activities, and noted that the
appropriations for the U.S. voluntary contribution has been at least
$50 million since fiscal year 2001. Table 2 provides a funding history
for these activities.
Table 2: Other Activities Funded through the NADR Account, Fiscal Years
1999 through 2005:
Dollars in millions.
Program[A]: International Atomic Energy Agency Voluntary Contribution;
Fiscal year appropriations: 1999: $40;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2000: $43;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2001: $50.5;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2002: $50;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2003: $52.9;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2004: $53;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2005 (request): $53.
Program[A]: International Monitoring System (for the Comprehensive
Test-Ban Treaty);
Fiscal year appropriations: 1999: $28.9;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2000: $13.7;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2001: $17.6;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2002: $16.6;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2003: $14;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2004: $19;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2005 (request): $19.
Program[A]: Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization;
Fiscal year appropriations: 1999: $53.1;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2000: $55.3;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2001: $74.9;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2002: $90.5;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2003: $5;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2004: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2005 (request): N/A.
Program[A]: Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Voluntary Contribution;
Fiscal year appropriations: 1999: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2000: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2001: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2002: $2;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2003: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2004: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2005 (request): N/A.
Program[A]: Lockerbie Trial Support;
Fiscal year appropriations: 1999: $N/ A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2000: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2001: $15;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2002: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2003: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2004: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2005 (request): N/A.
Program[A]: Counterterrorism Engagement with Allies;
Fiscal year appropriations: 1999: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2000: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2001: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2002: $3;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2003: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2004: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2005 (request): $0.5.
Program[A]: Israel Counterterrorism Assistance;
Fiscal year appropriations: 1999: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2000: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2001: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2002: $28;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2003: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2004: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2005 (request): N/A.
Program[A]: International Trust Fund;
Fiscal year appropriations: 1999: $N/ A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2000: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2001: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2002: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2003: $10;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2004: $10;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2005 (request): $10.
Program[A]: Counterterrorism Financing;
Fiscal year appropriations: 1999: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2000: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2001: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2002: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2003: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2004: N/A;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2005 (request): $7.5.
Program[A]: Total;
Fiscal year appropriations: 1999: $122;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2000: $112;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2001: $158;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2002: $190.1;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2003: $81.9;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2004: $82;
Fiscal year appropriations: 2005 (request): $90.
Legend: N/A = not applicable.
Source: Department of State Congressional Budget Justifications for
fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
[A] See appendixes II, III, and IV for descriptions of these
activities.
[End of table]
Program Activities Reflect Legislative Authorizations, but One
Program's Activities Appear to Go Beyond Expectations for the Scope of
Its Mission:
All the NADR programs are authorized by law, and program implementation
reflects those legislative authorizations. Because the NDF, however,
engages in both preplanned and longer-term activities, it also engages
in activities that, while legally authorized, appear to go beyond
expectations for the scope of the program's mission of providing a
flexible funding source to respond to urgent nonproliferation
activities. Program expectations appear in congressional
appropriations committee reports and have been reiterated by the
Secretary of State and the program's own mission statement. For
example, appropriations committee report language states that the
program should focus on "urgent, unanticipated nonproliferation
activities of immediate concern to the United States." Furthermore, the
program funds a longer-term export control activity that is designated
in committee reports as being outside the scope of the program's
expected activities. That export control activity has not been
integrated with State's Export Control and Related Border Security
Assistance Program, which supports development of export control
capabilities in other countries.
Program Activities Reflect Legislative Authorizations:
State is authorized to engage in the activities of the major programs
funded through the NADR account. The legislative authorities for the
programs generally establish the scope of authorized activities, the
countries in which the programs may operate, the retention of
appropriated funds, and whether the programs can operate regardless of
other existing laws.
We reviewed the types of activities funded by the major programs in the
context of program authorizations and found that these programs engage
in activities that are in accord with their legislative authorizations.
For example, among the nonproliferation programs, the Science Centers
and Bio-Chem Redirection Program is authorized to engage former Soviet
weapons scientists in civilian activities, and to facilitate conversion
of former Soviet military technologies and capabilities into civilian
activities. To fulfill this mission, the Science Centers and Bio-Chem
Redirection Program supports two international science centers--the
International Science and Technology Center in Moscow and the Science
and Technology Center in Ukraine--as well as other activities including
those that engage nuclear, biological, and chemical scientists in
research projects. These programs help focus on civilian research such
as public health, agriculture, the environment, measures to help combat
biological and chemical terrorism, and the development of vaccines for
infectious diseases.
Among the anti-terrorism programs, for example, the Anti-terrorism
Assistance Program is authorized to provide assistance to allied
countries to enhance their ability to deter terrorists and terrorist
groups from engaging in international terrorist acts. To fulfill its
mission, this program provides training and equipment to enhance other
countries' abilities to fight and prevent terrorism. The program
supports training and equipment in such areas as bomb detection and
disposal, management of hostage situations, physical security for
personnel, and law enforcement management.
Among the regional stability and humanitarian assistance programs, for
example, the Humanitarian Demining Program is authorized to provide
assistance to help strengthen war-torn countries to develop their
resources and improve their living standards. To fulfill this mission,
this program assists with the clearance of land mines and unexploded
ordnance, provides workshops and classes regarding mine safety for
people living in mine-affected regions, and funds research and training
for those who run mine action programs.
Detailed information on program authorizations and activities, program
implementation, and program funding by type of activity and recipient
country, as available, are provided in appendixes II (nonproliferation
programs), III (anti-terrorism programs), and IV (regional stability
and humanitarian assistance programs).
The Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund Appears to Engage in
Activities Beyond Expectations for the Scope of its Mission:
The NDF preplans some activities and engages in longer-term activities,
including export control activities that, while authorized by law,
appear to be inconsistent with expectations for the scope of the
program's mission. According to past language included in
appropriations committee reports, and both reiterated by the Secretary
of State and incorporated into the program's mission statement, the NDF
is expected to provide a flexible funding source to respond to urgent,
unanticipated nonproliferation activities. Furthermore, the longer-
term preplanned export control activity supported by the NDF has been,
and continues to be, developed and implemented independently from the
responsibilities and activities of State's Export Control and Related
Border Security Assistance Program, which is responsible for assisting
the development of export control capabilities in other countries.
Past Appropriations Committee Report Language Provides Guidance for NDF
Activities:
The 1997 congressional conference report on the appropriations for
foreign operations for fiscal year 1998 included language that directed
the NDF to focus on funding "urgent, unanticipated nonproliferation
activities of immediate concern to the United States." That conference
report also stated that "Longer term programmatic activities, such as
export controls [italics added]", should be funded separately "outside
of the NDF account" so that they would be subject to normal legislative
oversight and review.[Footnote 4] Between 1996 and 2000, the House
Appropriations Committee included similar language in committee reports
on foreign operations and related appropriations.[Footnote 5] This
congressional appropriations committee report language, however, is not
legally binding[Footnote 6] because it is not part of the program's
statutory authorization. Moreover, the committee has not included
similar language since calendar year 2000. Nevertheless, committee
reports are a standard source of congressional guidance for program
operations. While appropriations reports apply to appropriations for
the applicable fiscal year, the NDF's appropriations are available
indefinitely, instead of having to be returned to the U.S. Treasury at
the end of a fiscal year if not obligated by then.
In testimony before the Senate Committee on Appropriations'
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations in May 2001, the Secretary of State
reiterated the emergency response nature of the NDF by characterizing
it as a contingency rapid reaction fund, which can meet unanticipated
challenges and disperse funds quickly in support of urgent
nonproliferation objectives.[Footnote 7] Also, the NDF acknowledges the
nature of the committee report language in its mission statement. In
its September 2003 annual report, the program's mission statement
states that the NDF is a "sharply focused fund to permit rapid response
to unanticipated (or unusually difficult), high priority requirements/
opportunities" in the field of nonproliferation. The "unusually
difficult" part of the program's mission, however, emanates from the
program and not language in past congressional committee reports.
According to a program official, there are no clear parameters for
defining what would constitute an "unusually difficult" activity that
warranted support from the NDF. That official stated that a
determination of "unusually difficult" is made on a case-by-case basis
without standardized formal assessment criteria.
Some NDF Activities May Not Be Consistent with Expectations for the
Scope of the Program's Mission:
The NDF implements its nonproliferation responsibilities through
activities such as the removal and/or destruction of weapons and the
conversion of weapons testing facilities. However, some activities that
the program engages in appear to go beyond the scope of the program's
expected activities. In particular, the NDF (1) preplans some
programmatic expenditures and (2) funds at least one major longer-term
activity, which is an export control activity.
Applying the criteria of "urgent, unanticipated…activities of immediate
concern" suggests that a program address urgent needs that generally
arise unexpectedly and are not preplanned. Yet the NDF earmarked at
least half of its fiscal year 2004 request of $35 million for
preplanned and longer-term, multiyear activities to include (1) $8.75
million for a Biological Weapons Terrorism Initiative to help countries
develop laws and regulations, inventory existing materials, track the
movement of existing materials, and secure existing stock and (2) $8.75
million for the expansion and deployment of an automated export control
system called Tracker, which has been under development and deployment
by the NDF since 1994. And for fiscal year 2005, at least 57 percent of
the requested $34.5 million is for preplanned activities, including
$7.5 million for a Biological and Chemical Weapons Terrorism
Initiative, $5 million for a Nuclear and Radiological effort, and $7
million for the Tracker automated export control system.
To use funds to engage in preplanned activities may result in these
funds being unavailable to respond to urgent, unanticipated events. For
example, Libya's recent decision to divest itself of weapons of mass
destruction has generated an immediate response from the United States
in facilitating that divestiture. Because of the immediacy of the need,
the NDF has now been tasked to respond. But, according to program
officials, as of March 2004, the NDF was looking to curtail planned
expenditures to release funding to meet the urgent needs of the Libya
situation.[Footnote 8] According to State, the NDF now has sufficient
money to handle its unanticipated requirements in Libya.
The NDF also engages in at least one longer-term activity--development
and deployment of the Tracker automated export control system. Tracker
is a software system that helps countries process export control
applications by providing a central location for inputting, processing,
tracking, approving or denying, and reviewing export license
applications. The NDF has been paying for the initiation, development,
and deployment of this system since 1994, and has also funded, at its
discretion, the technical equipment to implement and operate the
system. According to a program official, as of February 2004, the
Tracker system was operational in nine countries--Bulgaria, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland.
Budget plans indicate significant planned investment in further
expansion of both the system's capabilities and the countries to which
it is provided. In particular, the NDF's fiscal year 2004 budget
request preplanned $8.75 million to further enhance the Tracker system
by improving its ability to handle biological, chemical, and
radiological materials, and by expanding its deployment to South Asia
and the Middle East. The fiscal year 2005 budget request includes
another $7 million for the same effort.
Costs of the Tracker system have consumed a significant portion of the
NDF's annual appropriation. As table 3 shows, those costs have ranged
from 21 percent of the appropriation level in fiscal year 1999 to as
much as 32 percent in fiscal year 2003.
Table 3: Funding for the Tracker Export Control System, Fiscal Years
1999 through 2005:
Dollars in millions.
Funding for Tracker export control system;
Fiscal year: 1999: $3.2;
Fiscal year: 2000: $4.7;
Fiscal year: 2001: $4.5;
Fiscal year: 2002: $4.5;
Fiscal year: 2003: $4.8;
Fiscal year: 2004: (request): $8.75;
Fiscal year: 2005 (request): $7.
Total program appropriation;
Fiscal year: 1999: $15;
Fiscal year: 2000: $15;
Fiscal year: 2001: $15;
Fiscal year: 2002: $14;
Fiscal year: 2003: $15;
Fiscal year: 2004: (request): $35;
Fiscal year: 2005 (request): $34.5.
Funding for Tracker system as percentage of total program
appropriation;
Fiscal year: 1999: 21%;
Fiscal year: 2000: 31%;
Fiscal year: 2001: 30%;
Fiscal year: 2002: 32%;
Fiscal year: 2003: 32%;
Fiscal year: 2004: (request): 25%;
Fiscal year: 2005 (request): 20%.
Source: Department of State and Congressional Budget Justifications for
fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
[End of table]
In addition, the Tracker system is an export control activity that the
language of congressional appropriations committee reports
specifically cited as an example of longer-term activities that the
program should not be funding. In 1996, the House Appropriations
Committee report expressly stated that the export control activities of
the NDF, while worthwhile, did not meet the committee's criteria for
the NDF to support only "urgent, unanticipated nonproliferation
activities of immediate concern to the United States."[Footnote 9] The
1997 conference report for fiscal year 1998 appropriations recommended
that $3 million of NADR account funds be used to support export
control-related activities. State applied that $3 million toward the
creation of the Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance
Program.
The Tracker System Is Developed Independently of State's Export Control
Program:
The Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund has developed and implemented
the Tracker automated export control system, and continues to do so,
independently from the responsibilities and activities of State's
Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance Program.[Footnote
10] The latter program conducts a comprehensive evaluation of the
export control capabilities in foreign countries, identifies
deficiencies in those capabilities including deficiencies in automated
system capabilities, and funds activities to resolve deficiencies. It
has provided assistance to about 42 countries, including eight of the
nine countries in which the Tracker system is reported to be
operational. According to State and Commerce officials, a comprehensive
export control capability generally includes such elements as
supporting laws, trained export control professionals, and implementing
policies and procedures. However, an official of the Export Control and
Related Border Security Assistance Program stated that the automated
Tracker system is not integrated into its program's assessment of
foreign countries' export control capabilities and deficiencies.
Department of Commerce officials who have participated in the
implementation of the Export Control and Related Border Security
Assistance Program expressed concern that the independent deployment of
the automated Tracker system may cause countries to mistakenly believe
that the Tracker system provides a comprehensive export control
capability rather than a single automated component of a comprehensive
export control system. Commerce officials noted that deploying any
automated export control system, such as the Tracker system, requires
careful consideration of a country's current export control
capabilities overall.
Program Management Relies Less on Contracted Experts Than Project
Implementation Does:
The major NADR programs are managed primarily by full-time federal
employees. However, project implementation is generally performed by
experts from other U.S. government agencies who are also federal
employees, or by outside contractors. Both the number of contract
personnel for implementing projects, and the timeframe for project
implementation vary depending on the needs of the project.
Program Management Relies Primarily on Full-time Federal Employees:
Program management offices for the major NADR programs consist mostly
of full-time federal employees. However, contract employees are also
used on a limited basis to assist with program management. The program
management personnel are primarily responsible for overall program
management rather than the implementation of projects funded by their
respective programs. Management responsibilities are generally
comprised of planning, oversight, and evaluation of program activities.
Program management staff develop projects to accomplish program
objectives. As table 4 illustrates, an average of 78.5 percent of
program staff for the major NADR programs were full-time federal
employees in fiscal year 2003.
Except for the Terrorist Interdiction Program, all of the programs use
outside contract employees to assist with program management. The use
of contract staff for program management ranges from zero to 46
percent. Officials from these programs indicated that, in general, the
contract employees are hired through annual, renewable personal service
contracts.
Table 4: Full-time Federal Employees and Contract Personnel in Program
Management for the Major NADR Programs, Fiscal Year 2004:
NADR program: Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund;
Program management personnel: Total program management staff: 13;
Program management personnel: Full-time federal employees: 7;
Program management personnel: Contract employees in program staff: 6;
Program management personnel: Percentage of full-time employees of
total staff: 54.
NADR program: Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance;
Program management personnel: Total program management staff: 14;
Program management personnel: Full-time federal employees: 12;
Program management personnel: Contract employees in program staff: 2;
Program management personnel: Percentage of full-time employees of
total staff: 86.
NADR program: Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection;
Program management personnel: Total program management staff: 24;
Program management personnel: Full-time federal employees: 16;
Program management personnel: Contract employees in program staff: 8;
Program management personnel: Percentage of full-time employees of
total staff: 67.
NADR program: Anti-terrorism Assistance;
Program management personnel: Total program management staff: 22;
Program management personnel: Full- time federal employees: 20;
Program management personnel: Contract employees in program staff: 2;
Program management personnel: Percentage of full-time employees of
total staff: 91.
NADR program: Terrorist Interdiction Program;
Program management personnel: Total program management staff: 1;
Program management personnel: Full-time federal employees: 1;
Program management personnel: Contract employees in program staff: 0;
Program management personnel: Percentage of full-time employees of
total staff: 100.
NADR program: Humanitarian Demining Program and Small Arms/Light
Weapons Destruction Program;
Program management personnel: Total program management staff: 26;
Program management personnel: Full-time federal employees: 19;
Program management personnel: Contract employees in program staff: 7;
Program management personnel: Percentage of full- time employees of
total staff: 73.
NADR program: Average per program;
Program management personnel: Total program management staff: 16.7;
Program management personnel: Full-time federal employees: 12.5;
Program management personnel: Contract employees in program staff: 4.2;
Program management personnel: Percentage of full-time employees of
total staff: 78.5.
Source: NADR program offices.
Note: On October 2, 2003, the Humanitarian Demining Program and the
Small Arms/Light Weapons Program were merged into a single Department
of State office named the Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement.
[End of table]
NADR Programs Use Government Agencies and Other Experts to Implement
Projects:
Project implementation for the major NADR programs, in contrast with
general program management, is generally performed by experts, some of
whom may be federal employees contracted through other U.S. government
agencies to implement projects, and some of whom are outside
contractors. The NADR programs enter into interagency agreements with
other U.S. government agencies, provide grants to international and
nongovernmental organizations, and/or contract with private companies
in order to implement projects funded by the NADR account. According to
program officials, the NADR programs implement projects through these
mechanisms because those agencies, organizations, and contractors have
the expertise necessary to effectively implement the projects.
To work through other U.S. government agencies to implement projects,
the major NADR programs generally enter into Interagency Acquisition
Agreements or Memorandums of Agreement/Understanding. These agreements
authorize the transfer of funds from the programming office to the
implementing agency and specify the work to be performed under the
agreement. Many of the NADR programs have entered into these agreements
with agencies and offices from the Departments of Defense, Energy,
Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Agriculture,
and the Environmental Protection Agency.[Footnote 11]
The number of contract personnel needed to implement a project varies
by project but can range, according to program officials, from as few
as one person to as many as several hundred. Project length also varies
depending on individual project requirements.
Conclusions:
There are differing expectations or interpretations about what the role
of the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund should be in responding to
nonproliferation objectives of the United States. Program management
implements a broad mission for the NDF, as permitted by law, that
includes not only the responsibility to provide a source of emergency
response funding, but also to engage in unusually difficult activities.
The latter could include longer-term efforts that may not be considered
urgent, unanticipated activities of immediate concern. However, the
expectations expressed in language in past congressional committee
reports, and the characterization of the NDF's focus in testimony by
the Secretary of State before a Senate committee, describe a program
mission that can be expected to focus on the objective of providing
emergency response capability rather than engaging in longer-term
programmatic activities such as export controls. The discrepancy
between these expectations and permissible activities under the law
would benefit from clarification of congressional intent through
legislation. In the light of such clarification, program activities
should be reassessed.
Furthermore, the NDF's export control activities and the export control
activities in the Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance
Program warrant evaluation, coordination, and integration. Having two
programs assisting the development of export control capabilities in
other countries from two separate approaches that are not integrated or
coordinated can result in duplication of effort and wasteful
expenditure.
Recommendation:
In this report, we are recommending that the Secretaries of State and
Commerce evaluate the extent to which the export control activities of
the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund and the Export Control and
Related Border Security Assistance Program are integrated and thus
ensure that recipient countries are receiving comprehensive assistance
to improve their export control systems.
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
The Congress may want to consider conditioning future year funding
requests for the Tracker export control system until the Secretaries of
State and Commerce have determined whether the two systems should be
integrated.
The Congress may also want to consider clarifying through legislation
its intent with respect to the scope and direction of the NDF's
activities.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
State provided written comments on the draft report. These comments are
reprinted in appendix V. The department also provided technical
comments, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate.
State concurred with our recommendation that the Tracker export control
program being developed and implemented by the NDF be integrated with
the export control activities of State's Export Control and Related
Border Security Assistance Program.
The Department of State took exception, however, to our use of the term
"earmarking" in characterizing the plans delineated in the budget
requests of the NDF. The department states that it has not earmarked
any funds of the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund nor does it plan
to do so in future years. State notes that funds can only be committed
through the NDF's review process. We understand that appropriated funds
cannot be committed for specific expenditures except through that
process. However, the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund has
informed the Congress in its budget justifications that it designated
requested appropriations for the preplanned longer-term activities we
cite in the report, which is the point we are making.
The department also stated that it had more than sufficient funds to
handle the unanticipated nonproliferation requirements in Libya.
Nevertheless, the director of the NDF explicitly told us at a meeting
on February 5, 2004, and at the exit conference with the department on
March 10, 2004, that the NDF was searching for funds that could be de-
obligated from approved activities in order to cover the costs for its
Libya activities. We have modified the body of the report to state that
according to State, the NDF now has sufficient money to handle its
unanticipated requirements in Libya.
The Department of State further stated that the NDF is not a
contingency fund awaiting opportunities. However, the Secretary of
State specifically characterized, in his testimony of May 15, 2001,
before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations,
the NDF, as we note in the report, as a "contingency rapid-reaction
fund which can meet unanticipated challenges and disperse funds quickly
in support of urgent nonproliferation objectives." In addition, the
Department of State stated it often used the NDF to create
opportunities, start new initiatives or programs, and undertake unique
and unusually difficult work. As we state in the report, some of the
NDF's activities appear to go beyond expectations for the scope of its
mission. As a result, we have made a matter for congressional
consideration that, if desired, the legal authority for the
Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund should be clarified through
legislation.
The Department of State commented that 1996 conference report language
reflected concerns about the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund
being the sole source of export control assistance funding, and that
the department responded to those concerns by creating an export
control assistance account in fiscal year 1998. However, the November
1997 appropriations conference committee report for fiscal year 1998
appropriations, specifically stated that "[T]he conferees strongly
support the core nonproliferation activities of the NDF. The NDF is
designed to provide the Secretary of State with a flexible funding
source to respond to urgent, unanticipated nonproliferation activities
of immediate concern to the United States. Longer term programmatic
activities, such as export controls, should be funded separately
outside of the NDF account and therefore subject to the normal
conditions for legislative oversight and review. For this reason the
conference agreement recommends that $3 million in NADR account funds
be used to support export control related activities.":
The Department of State also took exception to the report's relegation
of the United States' voluntary contribution to the International
Atomic Energy Agency to nonmajor status, although the department
acknowledged that we did not appear to intend to diminish the
importance of the program. As agreed with the department, we did not
intend to diminish the importance of this program, so we have revised
the report language to more appropriately reflect the importance of the
U.S. contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency's mission.
We also provided the Department of Commerce with a copy of the draft
report for its review and comment. Commerce stated that it had no
comments.
We conducted this review from August 2003 to March 2004 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional
committees, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Commerce. We
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
this report will be available at no cost on the GAO Web site at
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Please contact me at (202) 512-8979 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Key contributors to this report were F.
James Shafer, Beverly Ann Bendekgey, Joseph Brown, John F. Miller, Joe
Zamoyta, Mark Dowling, Martin de Alteriis, and Lynn Cothern.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Joseph A. Christoff, Director, International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine the legal authorizations for the programs funded through
the NADR account, and the extent to which the types of activities
funded met program authorizations, we obtained the statutory
authorizations from program officials and from our independent legal
searches; we discussed those authorizations with program officials and
reviewed them to determine if they were the statutes that applied to
their respective programs. We obtained from program officials
information and related documentation, as well as project data, on the
types of activities funded by the programs. We compared those types of
activities with program authorizations to determine if the activities
funded were generally in accord with the authorizations.
To determine the extent to which program management utilized outside
experts, we met with program officials responsible for implementing the
NADR programs to discuss, and obtain information and documentation on,
the composition of program management staff and the extent to which
programs utilized outside experts in project implementation. Program
managers provided us with information on each filled position on the
program staff and whether the position was filled with federal
employees or outside experts hired under contract.
To develop program funding histories for the report appendixes, we
obtained a 5-year funding history (fiscal years 1999 through 2003) of
individual projects for the major programs. We reviewed the reliability
of the project data provided by program officials by performing initial
testing of the funding data for completeness, consistency, and
reasonableness. We also interviewed program officials responsible for
managing the data to assess how the data are developed and maintained,
including the security of access to the data. We found the data
sufficiently reliable for representing program activities.
We conducted this review from August 2003 to March 2004 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Nonproliferation Programs Funded through the Department of
State's NADR Account:
The Department of State's nonproliferation programs funded through the
Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs
(NADR) account are designed to help achieve U.S. national security
interests by preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction,
their delivery systems, and related materials. There are three major
nonproliferation programs funded through the NADR account: the
Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund (NDF), the Export Control and
Related Border Security Assistance Program, and the Science Centers and
Bio-Chem Redirection Program, now referred to as the Nonproliferation
of Weapons of Mass Destruction Expertise Program. Each program operates
within State's Bureau of Nonproliferation under the authority of the
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
Affairs. In addition to these three major programs, the NADR account
also includes funding for additional nonproliferation activities that
are more narrowly focused.
State officials consider the voluntary contribution and programmatic
support to the International Atomic Energy Agency to be one of their
more important nonproliferation activities. While this contribution may
have received considerable levels of appropriations, we did not conduct
in-depth review of these activities because they were generally more
specific in scope than the three nonproliferation programs we reviewed
in depth. The International Atomic Energy Agency is discussed at the
end of this appendix.
Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund:
The NDF was established in 1992 to help (1) prevent the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction and related materials, (2) destroy or
neutralize such weapons and materials, and (3) limit the spread of
advanced conventional weapons and their delivery systems by providing a
flexible funding source that could respond rapidly to nonproliferation
needs and activities. To meet its mission, the NDF can hold
appropriated funds until expended, and these funds can be expended
notwithstanding any other provision of law. The NDF may engage in
certain activities worldwide, while some authorized activities are
restricted to countries that were part of the former Soviet Union.
Table 5 provides detailed information on program authorization,
activities, and implementation. Table 6 provides data on program
funding by type of activity for fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
Table 5: Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund:
Program authorization and activities:
Year established: 1992;
Legal authority for the program: The NDF was established pursuant to
section 504 of the Freedom Support Act (P.L. 102-511). The act
authorizes the President to promote bilateral and multilateral
nonproliferation and disarmament activities. The act gives the
President the authority to:
* Support the destruction and dismantlement of weapons of mass
destruction, their delivery systems, and related sensitive material,
and to assist efforts to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction;
* Prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the
former Soviet Union and to prevent diversion of weapons-related
expertise to terrorist groups and other parts of the world;
* Establish science centers in the Newly Independent States to engage
former weapons scientists in civilian activities; and;
* Establish programs facilitating the conversion of former Soviet Union
military technologies and capabilities into civilian activities.
The President delegated these statutory authorities to the Secretary of
State, who, in turn, delegated the authority to the Under Secretary for
Arms Control and International Security Affairs. The NDF's
appropriations are available indefinitely, instead of having to return
the funds to the U.S. Treasury at the end of the fiscal year if they
are unobligated by that time.
General program objectives: The NDF permits rapid response to
unanticipated or unusually difficult, high-priority requirements/
opportunities to:
* Halt the proliferation of nuclear, biological, chemical weapons,
their delivery systems, and related materials;
* Destroy or neutralize existing weapons of mass destruction, their
delivery systems, and related sensitive materials; and;
* Limit the spread of advanced conventional weapons and their delivery
systems.
Types of activities funded: The program has provided funding for the
following types of projects/activities:
* Education and training,
* Destruction and conversion,
* Enforcement and interdiction,
* Safeguards and verification, and;
* Tracker automated export control system.
Annual appropriations (in millions of dollars) for fiscal years 1999
through 2004 and the fiscal year 2005 request: Fiscal years;
1999 - $14.99;
2000 - $15;
2001 - $14.97;
2002 - $14;
2003 - $14.9;
2004 - $30;
2005 request - $34.5.
Program implementation: Managing unit within the Department of State:
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
Affairs;
* Office of the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund.
Project selection process: The NDF accepts project proposals from all
U.S. government agencies that support nonproliferation and disarmament
activities. These proposals include summaries of the projects, the
program objective being addressed, project justification, estimated
costs, alternative funding sources, related programs and policy
initiatives, and diplomatic negotiations and interagency deliberations;
The authority for final project approval lies with the Department of
State's Undersecretary Arms Control and International Security.
However, the proposals are reviewed by an interagency Review Panel,
which consists of the Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation and
officers at the assistant secretary and deputy assistant secretary
levels from the Department of State's Political and Military Affairs,
Arms Control, and Verification and Compliance Bureau as voting members.
Nonvoting members of the panel include representatives at the assistant
secretary level from the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy,
and Treasury, and from the Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and
Arms Control Center, the National Security Council, and the Office of
Management and Budget. The panel reviews each project proposal and then
provides a decision memo to the Under Secretary of State for Arms
Control and International Security Affairs for final project approval.
Source: Department of State program officials and legislation.
[End of table]
Table 6: Funding from the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund by Type
of Activity, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
Dollars in millions.
Type of Activity: Administrative;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.67;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.68;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.68;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.63;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.75;
Total: $3.41;
Percentage of total: 4.7.
Type of Activity: Destruction/Conversion;
Fiscal year: 1999: $4.00;
Fiscal year: 2000: $3.05;
Fiscal year: 2001: $2.30;
Fiscal year: 2002: $8.79;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: $18.14;
Percentage of total: 25.1.
Type of Activity: Education/Training;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.80;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.58;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: $1.38;
Percentage of total: 1.9.
Type of Activity: Enforcement/Interdiction;
Fiscal year: 1999: $6.73;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.73;
Fiscal year: 2001: $4.80;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: $12.26;
Percentage of total: 17.0.
Type of Activity: Safeguards/Verification;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $3.11;
Fiscal year: 2001: $3.00;
Fiscal year: 2002: $5.31;
Fiscal year: 2003: $3.91;
Total: $15.33;
Percentage of total: 21.2.
Type of Activity: Tracker;
Fiscal year: 1999: $3.16;
Fiscal year: 2000: $4.72;
Fiscal year: 2001: $4.50;
Fiscal year: 2002: $4.50;
Fiscal year: 2003: $4.80;
Total: $21.68;
Percentage of total: 30.0.
Total;
Fiscal year: 1999: $15.36;
Fiscal year: 2000: $12.29;
Fiscal year: 2001: $15.28;
Fiscal year: 2002: $19.81;
Fiscal year: 2003: $9.46;
Total: $72.20;
Percentage of total: 99.9.
Source: Department of State Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund.
Note: Percentage total does not add to 100 due to rounding.
[End of table]
Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance Program:
The Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance Program was
established as a separate program in 1998 to help prevent the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their missile delivery
systems, conventional weapons, and related items and materials by (1)
assisting foreign governments to establish and implement effective
export control systems that meet international standards and (2)
preventing transfers of sensitive goods to other countries and
terrorist networks. The program cannot hold appropriated funds
and must obligate funds within 1 year.
Table 7 provides detailed information on program authorization,
activities, and implementation. Table 8 provides data on program
funding by country--and table 9 by type of activity--for fiscal years
2000 through 2003.
Table 7: The Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance
Program:
Year established: 1998.
Legal authority for the program: Chapter IX of Part II of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended;
Assistance under this section is provided to halt the proliferation of
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and conventional weaponry
by:
* Enhancing nonproliferation and export control capabilities of
friendly countries by providing equipment and training;
* Offering assistance; and;
* Promoting multilateral activities related to nonproliferation;
The program must return unobligated funds to the U.S. Treasury by the
end of the fiscal year.
General program objectives: To help stem the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, their missile delivery systems, and other weapons
by providing assistance to other governments to establish and implement
effective export control systems that meet international standards;
This program works bilaterally and multilaterally to improve export
control capabilities in the following areas:
* Comprehensive legal/regulatory frameworks,
* Effective licensing procedures and practices,
* Effective enforcement techniques and capabilities,
* Government outreach to industry, and;
* Interagency coordination and cooperation.
Types of activities funded: The program has provided funding for the
following types of projects/activities:
* Legal and regulatory frameworks,
* Licensing processes,
* Border control and investigative capabilities,
* Outreach to industry, and;
* Interagency coordination.
Annual appropriations (in millions of dollars) for fiscal years 1999
through 2004 and the fiscal year 2005 request;
Fiscal years;
1999 - $9[A];
2000 - $14.53;
2001 - $19.1;
2002 - $41.7[A];
2003 - $36;
2004 - $36;
2005 request - $38.
Program implementation: Managing unit within the Department of State:
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
Affairs;
* Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation,
* Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation Controls, and;
* Office of Export Control Cooperation.
Project selection process;
The Office of Export Control Cooperation is responsible for developing
annual country plans that are the basis for providing assistance to
countries based on identified needs, resource availability, and the
ability to absorb the assistance. To determine the export control needs
of the countries, the office completes an annual assessment known as
the Export Control System Standards, and receives input from country
advisors, embassies, and implementing agencies on needed projects. The
Office of Export Control Cooperation then prioritizes the export
control threats included in the plans on a global scale to determine
which projects will be funded for the next fiscal year;
The country plans are then cleared by an interagency group involved in
export controls, including the Departments of Homeland Security
(Customs and Border Protection and Coast Guard), Commerce (Bureau of
Industry and Security), Energy (National Nuclear Security
Administration), and Defense (Defense Threat Reduction Agency). The
interagency group clears specific projects and identifies possible
duplicative efforts. The Office of Export Control Cooperation has final
approval of project selection and drafts the interagency agreements or
contracts for project implementation;
The Office of Export Control Cooperation obligates funds through
interagency agreements with the Departments of Commerce, Defense,
Energy, and Homeland Security (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) to
implement the projects of the Export Control and Related Border
Security program.
Source: Department of State program officials and legislation.
[A] Includes supplemental appropriations.
[End of table]
Table 8: Funding from the Export Control and Related Border Security
Assistance Program, by Country, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003:
Dollars in millions.
Afghanistan;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.077;
Total: $0.077;
Percentage of total: 0.08.
Albania;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.020;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.180;
Total: $0.200;
Percentage of total: 0.22.
Armenia;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.495;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.600;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.460;
Total: $1.555;
Percentage of total: 1.71.
Azerbaijan;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.145;
Fiscal year: 2001: $2.613;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.500;
Fiscal year: 2003: $2.519;
Total: $5.777;
Percentage of total: 6.34.
Bosnia and Herzegovina;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.377;
Total: $0.377;
Percentage of total: 0.41.
Bulgaria;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.520;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.350;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.410;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.314;
Total: $1.594;
Percentage of total: 1.75.
Croatia;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.040;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.440;
Total: $0.480;
Percentage of total: 0.53.
Cyprus;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.310;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.290;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.055;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.364;
Total: $1.019;
Percentage of total: 1.12.
Czech Republic;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.813;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.317;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.200;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.309;
Total: $1.639;
Percentage of total: 1.80.
Egypt;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.050;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: $0.050;
Percentage of total: 0.05.
Estonia;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.270;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.539;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.101;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.566;
Total: $1.476;
Percentage of total: 1.62.
Hungary;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.430;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.368;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.120;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.120;
Total: $1.038;
Percentage of total: 1.14.
India;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.285;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.874;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.800;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.125;
Total: $2.084;
Percentage of total: 2.29.
Jordan;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.720;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.183;
Total: $0.903;
Percentage of total: 0.99.
Kazakhstan;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.119;
Fiscal year: 2001: $2.665;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.655;
Fiscal year: 2003: $2.308;
Total: $6.747;
Percentage of total: 7.40.
Kyrgyzstan;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $2.000;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $2.114;
Total: $4.114;
Percentage of total: 4.51.
Latvia;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.420;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.474;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.141;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.450;
Total: $3.485;
Percentage of total: 3.82.
Lithuania;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.953;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.560;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.781;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.005;
Total: $3.299;
Percentage of total: 3.62.
Macedonia;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.320;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.495;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.100;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.534;
Total: $1.449;
Percentage of total: 1.59.
Malaysia;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.092;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.150;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: $0.242;
Percentage of total: 0.27.
Malta;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.377;
Fiscal year: 2001: $5.300;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.119;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.576;
Total: $6.372;
Percentage of total: 6.99.
Moldova;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.050;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.515;
Total: $0.565;
Percentage of total: 0.62.
Oman;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.020;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: $0.020;
Percentage of total: 0.02.
Pakistan;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.100;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.183;
Total: $0.283;
Percentage of total: 0.31.
Panama;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.042;
Total: $0.042;
Percentage of total: 0.05.
Poland;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.640;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.917;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.316;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.894;
Total: $2.767;
Percentage of total: 3.04.
Regional;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.810;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.456;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.205;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.406;
Total: $3.877;
Percentage of total: 4.25.
Romania;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.330;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.636;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.245;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.824;
Total: $2.035;
Percentage of total: 2.23.
Russia;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.800;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.000;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.385;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.902;
Total: $5.087;
Percentage of total: 5.58.
Saudi Arabia;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.030;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.060;
Total: $0.090;
Percentage of total: 0.10.
Serbia and Montenegro;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.423;
Total: $0.423;
Percentage of total: 0.46.
Slovakia;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.200;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.380;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.682;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.645;
Total: $1.907;
Percentage of total: 2.09.
Slovenia;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.125;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.405;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.350;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.793;
Total: $1.673;
Percentage of total: 1.84.
Taiwan;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.027;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.060;
Total: $0.087;
Percentage of total: 0.10.
Tajikistan;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.050;
Fiscal year: 2001: $7.500;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.350;
Total: $7.900;
Percentage of total: 8.67.
Thailand;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.028;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.070;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.033;
Total: $0.131;
Percentage of total: 0.14.
Turkey;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.299;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.000;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.583;
Total: $2.882;
Percentage of total: 3.16.
Turkmenistan;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.190;
Fiscal year: 2001: $5.000;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.389;
Total: $5.579;
Percentage of total: 6.12.
Ukraine;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.962;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.731;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.800;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.530;
Total: $4.023;
Percentage of total: 4.41.
United Arab Emirates;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.283;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.350;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.200;
Total: $0.833;
Percentage of total: 0.91.
Uzbekistan;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $4.330;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.300;
Fiscal year: 2003: $2.154;
Total: $6.784;
Percentage of total: 7.44.
Vietnam;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.020;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.040;
Total: $0.060;
Percentage of total: 0.07.
Yemen;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.137;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: $0.137;
Percentage of total: 0.15.
Total;
Fiscal year: 2000: $10.139;
Fiscal year: 2001: $41.561;
Fiscal year: 2002: $13.415;
Fiscal year: 2003: $26.047;
Total: $91.162;
Percentage of total: 100.01.
Source: Department of State Office of Export Control Cooperation.
Note: Percentage total does not add to 100 due to rounding.
[End of table]
Table 9: Funding from the Export Control and Related Border Security
Assistance Program, by Type of Activity, Fiscal Years 2000 through
2003:
Dollars in millions.
Administrative/Support costs;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.80;
Fiscal year: 2001: $10.63;
Fiscal year: 2002: $5.43;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.87;
Total: $18.73;
Percentage of total: 20.55.
Advisors;
Fiscal year: 2000: $2.64;
Fiscal year: 2001: $5.31;
Fiscal year: 2002: $3.53;
Fiscal year: 2003: $5.49;
Total: $16.97;
Percentage of total: 18.62.
Enforcement techniques and capabilities;
Fiscal year: 2000: $2.67;
Fiscal year: 2001: $22.81;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.88;
Fiscal year: 2003: $14.23;
Total: $40.59;
Percentage of total: 44.53.
Government outreach;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.65;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.00;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.80;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.50;
Total: $2.95;
Percentage of total: 3.24.
Legal/regulatory frameworks;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.41;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.17;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.17;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.40;
Total: $1.15;
Percentage of total: 1.26.
Licensing procedures and practices;
Fiscal year: 2000: $2.97;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.63;
Fiscal year: 2002: $2.61;
Fiscal year: 2003: $3.56;
Total: $10.77;
Percentage of total: 11.81.
Total funding;
Fiscal year: 2000: $10.14;
Fiscal year: 2001: $41.55;
Fiscal year: 2002: $13.42;
Fiscal year: 2003: $26.05;
Total: $91.16;
Percentage of total: 100.01.
Source: Department of State Office of Export Control Cooperation.
Note: Percentage total does not add to 100 due to rounding.
[End of table]
Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection Program:
The Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection Program[Footnote 12]
pursues its responsibilities through three main activities: (1) the
Science Centers, (2) the Bio-Chem Redirection Program, and (3) the
BioIndustry Initiative. The Science Centers program was established in
1992 in the Department of Defense and transferred to the Department of
State in 1996. Along with the Bio-Chem Redirection Program, which was
established in 1997, these programs help prevent the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction by (1) engaging former Soviet Union
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons scientists in civilian
research to prevent them from providing expertise and weapons to other
states and terrorist networks and (2) countering the threat of bio-
terrorism through transformation of former Soviet weapons research and
production facilities for civilian research. The Science Centers and
the Bio-Chem Redirection programs finance civilian research by former
Soviet weapons scientists as an alternative to their providing their
expertise to terrorist networks and other states.
The BioIndustry Initiative, which was established in 2002, helps
reconfigure large scale former Soviet biological weapons production
facilities to commercial uses, and engages former biological and
chemical weapons scientists in civilian research projects, such as
developing drugs and vaccines. Program activities are restricted to
countries that were part of the former Soviet Union, and funds must be
obligated within 1 fiscal year. Table 10 provides detailed information
on program authorization, activities, and implementation.
Table 10: Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection Program:
Program authorization and activities.
Year established:
Science Centers: Established in the Department of Defense in 1992, and
transferred to the Department of State in 1996;
Bio-Chem Redirection: 1997;
BioIndustry Initiative: 2002.
Legal authority for the program:
Science Centers, Bio-Chem Redirection, and BioIndustry Initiative: The
Freedom Support Act of 1992, (P.L. 102-511) Title V, Sections 503 and
504;
The President is authorized to promote bilateral and multilateral
nonproliferation and disarmament activities to:
* Support the destruction and dismantlement of weapons of mass
destruction, their delivery systems, and related sensitive material,
and to assist efforts to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction;
* Prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the
former Soviet Union, and to prevent diversion of weapons of mass
destruction to terrorist groups and other parts of the world;
* Establish science centers in the Newly Independent States to engage
former weapons scientists in civilian activities; and;
* Establish programs facilitating the conversion of former Soviet Union
military technologies and capabilities into civilian activities;
Efforts are restricted to those states that were part of the former
Soviet Union;
The program must return unobligated funds to the U.S. Treasury by the
end of the fiscal year.
General program objectives:
Science Centers: The Science Centers program finances civilian research
by former Soviet weapons scientists as an alternative to their
providing weapons of mass destruction and missile expertise to
terrorist networks and other states. The program engages thousands of
former nuclear, biological, chemical weapons, and missile scientists in
peaceful research and supports ongoing activities that foster
commercial development, international commercial research
opportunities, and self-sustainable civilian employment;
Bio-Chem Redirection: The Bio-Chem Redirection program is designed to
engage former Soviet biological and chemical weapons scientists in
civilian research to offer a viable economic alternative to marketing
their skills to countries of proliferation concern or terrorist groups.
The program also promotes access and transparency at former Soviet
Union weapons-related facilities and supports efforts to combat
biological and chemical terrorism. Furthermore, the program seeks to
further develop the elements of infrastructure required to support a
civilian chemical and biotechnology industry, while helping weapons
scientists move toward long-term civilian employment;
BioIndustry Initiative: The Initiative's goal is to counter the threat
of bioterrorism through targeted transformation of former Soviet
biological weapons research and production capacities into civilian
commercial production facilities and to support collaborative research
and development projects that could accelerate drug and vaccine
development for highly infectious diseases.
Types of activities funded:
The Science Centers program funds two international science centers:
the International Science and Technology Center in Moscow, Russia, and
the Science and Technology Center in Kiev, Ukraine. Those science
centers have provided funding for the following types of projects/
activities:
* Science and technology research and development,
* Professional and business management training,
* Patent and technology commercialization support,
* Communication upgrade support, and;
* Travel support;
The Bio-Chem Redirection program funds projects that are implemented by
other U.S. federal agencies for the following kinds of research:
* Public health,
* Agriculture, and;
* Environment;
The BioIndustry Initiative funds activities through the International
Science and Technology Center in Moscow, the Civilian Research and
Development Foundation, which is a private research organization, and
the Center for Integrated Medicine and Innovative Technologies which
receives funds under contract. The kinds of activities the Initiative
funds include:
* Reconfiguring large-scale former biological weapons production
facilities for civilian uses and;
* Accelerated drug and vaccine development to combat highly infectious
diseases.
Annual appropriations (in millions of dollars) for fiscal years 1999
through 2004 and the fiscal year 2005 request; Fiscal years;
Science Centers[E];
1999 - $22;
2000 - $59;
2001 - $35;
2002 - $37;
2003 - $32;
2004 - $50.5[A];
2005 request - $50.5[A,B];
Bio-Chem Redirection;
1999 - $6.88;
2000 - $19;
2001 - $16;
2002 - $15;
2003 - $20[C];
BioIndustry Initiative;
1999 - N/A;
2000 - N/A;
2001 - N/A;
2002 - $30[D].
Program implementation: Managing unit within the Department of State;
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
Affairs;
* Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation,
* Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation Controls,
and;
* Office of Proliferation Threat Reduction.
Project selection process:
Science Centers;
This program funds activities at the two international science centers
noted above. All project proposals are received from the two
international science centers and reviewed by the Office of
Proliferation Threat Reduction at the Department of State. However, the
office does not directly implement any of the activities at the science
centers. Instead, it transfers its funds to the international science
centers to fund projects that State identifies;
Scientific institutes from countries participating with either of the
international science centers create proposals for new projects. These
proposals are initially reviewed by the science centers for the
completeness and quality of the proposals, and then forwarded to the
Office of Proliferation Threat Reduction. The office identifies the
proposals to review and likely fund with NADR funds based on the
proliferation implications, the institutes involved, and the
contribution to an institute's self-sustainability. The office then
sends the proposal to offices within the Departments of State, Defense,
and Energy for a policy review, which determines whether the research
is consistent with U.S. nonproliferation goals. The contracted
Department of Energy laboratory science advisors provide support for
the science centers and perform technical reviews for each proposal.
After the science advisors make recommendations for the projects,
members from the governing boards of each international science center,
the science advisors, and members of the Department of State convene to
make final funding decisions about the project proposals;
Bio-Chem Redirection;
The Office of Proliferation Threat Reduction identifies the needs,
finds the U.S. agency that can implement the needed projects, and then
provides the agencies with funds to pay for the projects through an
interagency transfer of funds. The U.S. agencies that implement the
projects include the Department of Health and Human Services, the
Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency;
The Nonproliferation Interagency Roundtable--an interagency
coordinating committee--also reviews the biological and chemical
redirection proposals before funding is approved. The Nonproliferation
Interagency Review group meets monthly and members include
representatives from the agencies that review and fund nonproliferation
projects, enabling these agencies to comment on the proposals and
coordinate efforts;
BioIndustry Initiative;
The BioIndustry Initiative assesses the targeted institutes'
capabilities and technologies, partnering Russian laboratories with
American researchers in private companies and public institutions. By
fostering new partnerships and diversifying funding sources, this
Initiative hopes to achieve its long-term goal of launching viable
research and production institutions on a defined pathway toward
greater self- sustainability. This initiative is currently undergoing a
decision- making process to choose which projects in which to engage
scientists and institutes. The initial work performed under this
initiative was to perform evaluations of institutes and assess
capabilities for projects.
Source: Department of State program officials and legislation.
[A] The fiscal years 2004 and 2005 requests were listed as a single
line-item request for all three programs.
[B] The fiscal year 2005 budget request refers to the Science Centers
and Bio-Chem Redirection program as the "Nonproliferation of WMD
Expertise" program.
[C] The $20 million includes $2 million that was applied to the
BioIndustry Initiative.
[D] The $30 million for the BioIndustry Initiative in fiscal year 2002
was a one-time transfer of unobligated funds from the Department of
Defense to the Department of State as part of the fiscal year 2002
Emergency Response Funds appropriations.
[E] The Science Centers were funded through the Freedom Support Act
prior to fiscal year 2001, and the Bio-Chem Redirection program was
funded from the Freedom Support Act account prior to fiscal year 2002.
Since those years, the programs have been funded through the NADR
account.
[End of table]
As noted above, the funding for the Science Centers effort goes to two
international science centers--the International Science and Technology
Center in Moscow, Russia, and the Science and Technology Center in
Kiev, Ukraine. Table 11 provides the funding history for these two
centers for fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
Table 11: Funding for the International Science Centers, Fiscal Years
1999 through 2003:
Dollars in millions.
International Science and Technology Center (Moscow);
Fiscal year: 1999: $18;
Fiscal year: 2000: $39;
Fiscal year: 2001: $26;
Fiscal year: 2002: $25.5;
Fiscal year: 2003: $20.5;
Total: $129;
Percentage of total: 77.2.
Science and Technology Center (Kiev);
Fiscal year: 1999: $3;
Fiscal year: 2000: $16;
Fiscal year: 2001: $6;
Fiscal year: 2002: $6.5;
Fiscal year: 2003: $6.5;
Total: $38;
Percentage of total: 22.8.
Total;
Fiscal year: 1999: $21;
Fiscal year: 2000: $55;
Fiscal year: 2001: $32;
Fiscal year: 2002: $32;
Fiscal year: 2003: $27;
Total: $167;
Percentage of total: 100.
Source: Department of State Office of Proliferation Threat Reduction.
[End of table]
As noted above, the Bio-Chem Redirection effort funds projects through
other U.S. federal agencies. Table 12 provides the funding history for
bio-chem redirection projects for fiscal years 1999 through 2003 by the
agency that implemented the projects.
Table 12: Funding of Bio-Chem Redirection Projects by Implementing
Agency, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
Dollars in millions.
Department of Health and Human Services;
Fiscal year: 1999: $4.9;
Fiscal year: 2000: $11;
Fiscal year: 2001: $10;
Fiscal year: 2002: $9;
Fiscal year: 2003: $9;
Total: $43.9;
Percentage of total: 58.6.
Department of Agriculture;
Fiscal year: 1999: $2;
Fiscal year: 2000: $7;
Fiscal year: 2001: $6;
Fiscal year: 2002: $5;
Fiscal year: 2003: $6;
Total: $26;
Percentage of total: 34.7.
Environmental Protection Agency;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1;
Fiscal year: 2003: $2;
Total: $4;
Percentage of total: 5.3.
Department of Energy/Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.2;
Total: $0.2;
Percentage of total: 0.3.
International Science and Technology Center (Moscow);
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.8;
Total: $0.8;
Percentage of total: 1.1.
Total;
Fiscal year: 1999: $6.9;
Fiscal year: 2000: $19;
Fiscal year: 2001: $16;
Fiscal year: 2002: $15;
Fiscal year: 2003: $18;
Total: $74.9;
Percentage of total: 100.
Source: Department of State Office of Proliferation Threat Reduction.
[End of table]
The BioIndustry Initiative is a relatively new program, with initial
funding provided in fiscal year 2002. Slightly over 88 percent of the
$30 million the initiative provided that year went to the International
Science and Technology Center in Moscow, while the remaining nearly 12
percent went to projects funded through the Civilian Research and
Defense Fund, a private organization that engages in activities similar
to that of the science center. In fiscal year 2003, $2 million was
provided to the international science center.
Additional Nonproliferation Programs Funded through the NADR Account:
In addition to the three major programs, the NADR appropriations
account included funding for some additional nonproliferation
activities that were more narrowly focused. We did not conduct in-depth
review of these activities because they were generally more limited in
scope than the nonproliferation activities discussed above. The
additional activities include the following:
* The International Atomic Energy Agency Voluntary Contribution
supplements the agency's operating budget to help implement
strengthened nuclear safeguards measures, allow expansion in nuclear
safety cooperation with key countries, and combat nuclear and
radiological terrorism.
* Funding to the International Monitoring System, which is part of the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, helps detect nuclear explosions.
* U.S. assistance to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development
Organization funded some administrative expenses and provided annual
shipments of heavy fuel oil to the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea in lieu of the energy given up when the country froze its
declared nuclear facilities. The last funding provided for this
activity occurred in fiscal year 2003.
* The United States provided a one-time voluntary contribution in
fiscal year 2002 to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons, which implements provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention
that banned the development, production, acquisition, and use of
chemical weapons by member states. U.S. assistance was limited to
activities mutually agreed to by the organization and the U.S.
government to meet exceptional needs, including (1) the conduction of
additional industry inspections, (2) improvements to a relational
database for verification planning and reporting, (3) outreach for
implementation of legislation to combat chemical terrorism, and (4)
support of management and planning functions of the organization.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Anti-terrorism Programs Funded through the Department of
State's NADR Account:
The Department of State's anti-terrorism programs funded through the
NADR account are designed to help achieve U.S. national security
interests by providing foreign countries with training and technical
capabilities that enhance their ability to prevent terrorist
activities. There are two major anti-terrorism programs funded through
the NADR account: the Anti-terrorism Assistance Program and the
Terrorist Interdiction Program. In addition to these two major
programs, the NADR account also includes funding for additional anti-
terrorism activities that are more narrowly focused.
Anti-terrorism Assistance Program:
The Anti-terrorism Assistance Program was established in 1983 in
response to the bombings of U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. The program
is intended to help prevent terrorist activities by providing training,
equipment, and advice to foreign countries to (1) enhance the anti-
terrorism skills and capabilities of foreign law enforcement and
security officials to build the capacity of key countries abroad to
fight terrorism; (2) establish security relationships between U.S. and
foreign officials to strengthen cooperative anti-terrorism efforts; and
(3) share modern, humane, and effective anti-terrorism techniques.
There is no geographic restriction on which countries may participate
in this program, and no time limit for the expenditure of appropriated
funds.
Table 13 provides detailed information on program authorization,
activities, and implementation. Table 14 provides data on program
funding by country for the fiscal years 1999 through 2003, while table
15 provides data on program funding by type of activity for those same
fiscal years.
Table 13: Anti-terrorism Assistance Program:
Program authorization and activities:
Year established: 1983:
Legal authority for the program: Chapter VIII, Part II, of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195), as amended;
This program was established to implement those provisions authorizing
the President to provide assistance to foreign countries to enhance the
ability of their law enforcement personnel to deter terrorists and
terrorist groups from engaging in international terrorist events such
as bombing, kidnapping, assassination, hostage taking, and hijacking.
Such assistance may include training services and the provision of
equipment and other commodities related to
(1) bomb detection and disposal;
(2) management of hostage situations;
(3) physical security; and
(4) other matters relating to the detection, deterrence, and prevention
of acts of terrorism, the resolution of terrorist incidents, and the
apprehension of those involved in such acts;
The President's authority under this act is restricted by only two
other provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act: (1) 22 U.S.C. 2304
regarding provision of security assistance to countries that engage in
a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights, and (2) 22
U.S.C. 2371 regarding provision of assistance to governments supporting
terrorism;
The act also does not limit the countries to which the President can
provide the assistance. However, the Assistant Secretary of State for
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor must be consulted when determining
recipient foreign countries;
The program's unobligated funds must be returned to the U.S. Treasury
at the end of the fiscal year.
General program objectives: The mission of the program is to (1) build
the capacity of key countries to fight terrorism;
(2) establish security relationships between U.S. and foreign officials
to strengthen cooperative anti-terrorism efforts;
and (3) share modern, humane, and effective anti-terrorism techniques.
Types of activities funded: The program supports the following types of
activities to help fight terrorism:
* Conferences, seminars, and workshops on anti-terrorism training;
* Country-specific assessments, evaluation, and consultations;
* Equipment transfer or related training;
* Investigation procedures training;
* Counterterrorism management training;
* Physical, national, or security training;
and; * Weapons of mass destruction related training;
In addition, projects may include the development of workshops to
assist countries in drafting strong laws against terrorism. A recently
added component of training deals with the financial underpinnings of
terrorists and criminal money launderers.
Annual appropriations (in millions of dollars) for fiscal years 1999
through 2004 and the fiscal year 2005 request:
Fiscal years;
1999 - $41[A];
2000 - $31;
2001 - $38;
2002 - $157.4[B];
2003 - $90.6[C];
2004 - $97;
2005 request - $128.3.
Program implementation:
Managing unit within the Department of State:
Undersecretary of State for Management;
* Bureau of Diplomatic Security;
* Office of Anti-terrorism Assistance;
Program policy and direction is provided by the State Department's
Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism who reports directly to
the Deputy Secretary of State.
Project selection process: The Department of State's Coordinator for
Counterterrorism creates a "country participation list," which lists
countries that the Department of State would like to center their
future year's anti-terrorism assistance training programs. The priority
of a country is determined by considering
(1) bilateral counterterrorism policy interests;
(2) the threat of terrorism against U.S. interests and the ability of
the country to respond; and
(3) an ability of the country to receive, use, and institutionalize
training. Once a country is approved for participation, the program
conducts an in-country assessment to determine the capability and the
needs of the recipient country.
Source: Department of State program officials and legislation.
Note: The Terrorist Interdiction Program discussed below is also
authorized by Sections 571 and 572, but it focuses on the detection,
deterrence, and prevention of acts of terrorism; the resolution of
terrorist incidents; and the apprehension of those involved in such
acts.
[A] Includes $20 million from the fiscal year 1999 Emergency
Supplemental.
[B] Includes $45.5 million from the fiscal year 2002 Emergency Response
Fund and $73 million from the fiscal year 2002 Emergency Supplemental.
[C] Includes $25 million from the fiscal year 2003 Emergency
Supplemental.
[End of table]
Table 14: Distribution of Anti-terrorism Assistance Program Funding by
Country/Region, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
Dollars in millions.
Abu Dhabi;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.237;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.237;
Percentage of total: 0.11%.
Africa region;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.259;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.259;
Percentage of total: 0.12%.
Albania;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.587;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.359;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.196;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.126;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $2.268;
Percentage of total: 1.04%.
Algeria;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.149;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.618;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.749;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.707;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $2.223;
Percentage of total: 1.02%.
Argentina;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.059;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.011;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.070;
Percentage of total: 0.03%.
Armenia;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $2.056;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.031;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $3.087;
Percentage of total: 1.42%.
Australia;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.027;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.027;
Percentage of total: 0.01%.
Azerbaijan;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.880;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.861;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.323;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $4.064;
Percentage of total: 1.87%.
Bahrain;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.203;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.465;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.668;
Percentage of total: 0.31%.
Bangladesh;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.138;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.018;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.424;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.563;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $4.143;
Percentage of total: 1.90%.
Bosnia-Herzegovina;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.054;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.249;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.171;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.127;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.790;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $1.391;
Percentage of total: 0.64%.
Botswana;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.011;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.310;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.321;
Percentage of total: 0.15%.
Brazil;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.036;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.494;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.530;
Percentage of total: 0.24%.
Brunei;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.008;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.131;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.139;
Percentage of total: 0.06%.
Central America region;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.025;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.218;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.243;
Percentage of total: 0.11%.
Chile;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.011;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.011;
Percentage of total: 0.01%.
Colombia;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.427;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.642;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.108;
Fiscal year: 2002: $3.396;
Fiscal year: 2003: $31.258;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $37.831;
Percentage of total: 17.38%.
Costa Rica;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.042;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.042;
Percentage of total: 0.02%.
Croatia;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.250;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.271;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.521;
Percentage of total: 0.24%.
Cyprus;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.018;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.418;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.646;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.473;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $2.555;
Percentage of total: 1.17%.
Czech Republic;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.673;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.971;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.210;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.007;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $1.861;
Percentage of total: 0.85%.
Djibouti;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.038;
Fiscal year: 2003: $3.221;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $3.259;
Percentage of total: 1.50%.
Dominican Republic;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.112;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.112;
Percentage of total: 0.05%.
Dubai;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.090;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.090;
Percentage of total: 0.04%.
East Asia Pacific region;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.341;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.010;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.351;
Percentage of total: 0.16%.
Ecuador;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.008;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.500;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.626;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $3.134;
Percentage of total: 1.44%.
Egypt;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.806;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.430;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.461;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.503;
Fiscal year: 2003: $2.213;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $6.413;
Percentage of total: 2.95%.
El Salvador;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.122;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.122;
Percentage of total: 0.06%.
Ethiopia;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.245;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.252;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.497;
Percentage of total: 0.23%.
Europe region;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.379;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.313;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.692;
Percentage of total: 0.32%.
Fiji;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.040;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.104;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.144;
Percentage of total: 0.07%.
Georgia;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.989;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.685;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.657;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $4.331;
Percentage of total: 1.99%.
Greece;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.147;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.015;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.337;
Fiscal year: 2002: $3.791;
Fiscal year: 2003: $3.790;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $8.080;
Percentage of total: 3.71%.
Guatemala;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.015;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.015;
Percentage of total: 0.01%.
Hungary;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.275;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.275;
Percentage of total: 0.13%.
India;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.461;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.655;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.852;
Fiscal year: 2003: $2.007;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $4.975;
Percentage of total: 2.29%.
Indonesia;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.043;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.261;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.866;
Fiscal year: 2003: $9.595;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $11.765;
Percentage of total: 5.40%.
Israel;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.422;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.054;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.342;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.788;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.023;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $2.629;
Percentage of total: 1.21%.
Italy;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.389;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.464;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.853;
Percentage of total: 0.39%.
Ivory Coast;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.133;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.254;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $1.387;
Percentage of total: 0.64%.
Japan;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.109;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.109;
Percentage of total: 0.05%.
Jordan;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.715;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.679;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.405;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.512;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.334;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $4.645;
Percentage of total: 2.13%.
Kazakhstan;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.371;
Fiscal year: 2002: $2.484;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.490;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $4.345;
Percentage of total: 2.00%.
Kenya;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.139;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.808;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.046;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.279;
Fiscal year: 2003: $11.012;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $12.284;
Percentage of total: 5.64%.
Kuwait;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.428;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.436;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.955;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.337;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.083;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $2.239;
Percentage of total: 1.03%.
Kyrgyzstan;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.958;
Fiscal year: 2002: $2.634;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.371;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $4.963;
Percentage of total: 2.28%.
Macedonia;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.831;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.753;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.060;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.598;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $2.242;
Percentage of total: 1.03%.
Madagascar;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.201;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.362;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.563;
Percentage of total: 0.26%.
Malaysia;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.124;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.109;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.096;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.365;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.078;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $2.772;
Percentage of total: 1.27%.
Mali;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.417;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.417;
Percentage of total: 0.19%.
Malta;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.010;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.100;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.110;
Percentage of total: 0.05%.
Mauritania;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.866;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.041;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.907;
Percentage of total: 0.42%.
Mauritius;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.156;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.156;
Percentage of total: 0.07%.
Mexico;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.001;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.074;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.172;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.247;
Percentage of total: 0.11%.
Middle East region;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.108;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.232;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.340;
Percentage of total: 0.16%.
Moldova;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.093;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.093;
Percentage of total: 0.04%.
Morocco;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.117;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.291;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.609;
Fiscal year: 2003: $3.242;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $5.259;
Percentage of total: 2.42%.
Nepal;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.312;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.949;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.097;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $2.358;
Percentage of total: 1.08%.
Norway;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.019;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.019;
Percentage of total: 0.01%.
Oman;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.212;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.556;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.514;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.769;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.549;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $4.600;
Percentage of total: 2.11%.
Pakistan;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.380;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.829;
Fiscal year: 2003: $9.030;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $10.239;
Percentage of total: 4.70%.
Panama;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.021;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.021;
Percentage of total: 0.01%.
Paraguay;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.080;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.421;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.715;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.015;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.174;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $1.405;
Percentage of total: 0.65%.
Peru;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.015;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.020;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.154;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.189;
Percentage of total: 0.09%.
Philippines;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.004;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.550;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.584;
Fiscal year: 2002: $2.494;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.693;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $6.325;
Percentage of total: 2.91%.
Poland;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.002;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.553;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.007;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.562;
Percentage of total: 0.26%.
Qatar;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.135;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.472;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.159;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.766;
Percentage of total: 0.35%.
Russia;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.120;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.120;
Percentage of total: 0.06%.
Saudi Arabia;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.055;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.759;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.814;
Percentage of total: 0.37%.
Senegal;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.054;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.517;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.827;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $1.398;
Percentage of total: 0.64%.
Sharjah;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.038;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.038;
Percentage of total: 0.02%.
Singapore;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.055;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.055;
Percentage of total: 0.03%.
South Africa;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.035;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.559;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.579;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.849;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.679;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $4.701;
Percentage of total: 2.16%.
Spain;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.038;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.588;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.626;
Percentage of total: 0.29%.
Sri Lanka;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.061;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.303;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.315;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.188;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.353;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $2.220;
Percentage of total: 1.02%.
Tajikistan;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.029;
Fiscal year: 2003: $2.950;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $2.979;
Percentage of total: 1.37%.
Tanzania;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.141;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.088;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.444;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.433;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.206;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $1.312;
Percentage of total: 0.60%.
Thailand;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.733;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.681;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.018;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.244;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.654;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $4.330;
Percentage of total: 1.99%.
Trinidad/Tobago;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.531;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.531;
Percentage of total: 0.24%.
Tunisia;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.022;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.569;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $1.591;
Percentage of total: 0.73%.
Turkey;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.562;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.236;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.619;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.779;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $5.196;
Percentage of total: 2.39%.
Turkmenistan;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.022;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.022;
Percentage of total: 0.01%.
Uganda;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.472;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.337;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.338;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $1.147;
Percentage of total: 0.53%.
Ukraine;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.013;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.013;
Percentage of total: 0.01%.
United Arab Emirates;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.894;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.564;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.044;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.451;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $1.953;
Percentage of total: 0.90%.
United Kingdom;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.055;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.055;
Percentage of total: 0.03%.
Uzbekistan;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.120;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.790;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.247;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.864;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.890;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $5.911;
Percentage of total: 2.72%.
Yemen;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.178;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.925;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.742;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.825;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.127;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $2.797;
Percentage of total: 1.28%.
Multiregion conferences[A];
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.069;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.010;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $0.079;
Percentage of total: 0.04%.
Total;
Fiscal year: 1999: $7.105;
Fiscal year: 2000: $22.473;
Fiscal year: 2001: $31.212[B];
Fiscal year: 2002: $49.007;
Fiscal year: 2003: $107.881;
Total: (totals may not add exactly due to rounding): $217.678[B];
Percentage of total: 100.4[C]%.
Source: Department of State Office of Anti-terrorism Assistance.
Note: In addition to the country expenditures above, a program official
from the Anti-terrorism Assistance program stated that in fiscal years
2002 and 2003, approximately $18 million was expended in Afghanistan
toward protecting President Hamid Karzai and toward the creation and
training of the Afghan Presidential Protective Service.
[A] Multiregion conferences were defined as conferences funded in the
United States where participants came from multiple regions.
[B] Fiscal year totals may not equal total of table 15 due to rounding.
[C] Percentage total does not add to 100 due to rounding.
[End of table]
Table 15: Distribution of Anti-terrorism Assistance Program Funding, by
Activity, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
Dollars in millions.
Conferences, seminars, and workshops on anti-terrorism;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.069;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.338;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.627;
Fiscal year: 2002: $2.147;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.737;
Total: $4.918;
Percentage of total: 2.3%.
Country assessments and consultations;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.118;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.353;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.387;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.301;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.526;
Total: 3.685;
Percentage of total: 1.7%.
Equipment transfer or related training;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $.084;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $.074;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.530;
Total: 0.688;
Percentage of total: 0.3%.
Investigation procedures training;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.636;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.105;
Fiscal year: 2001: $3.559;
Fiscal year: 2002: $3.399;
Fiscal year: 2003: $5.015;
Total: 13.714;
Percentage of total: 6.3%.
Counterterrorism management training;
Fiscal year: 1999: $3.286;
Fiscal year: 2000: $9.777;
Fiscal year: 2001: $13.191;
Fiscal year: 2002: $18.411;
Fiscal year: 2003: $76.004;
Total: 120.669;
Percentage of total: 55.4%.
Physical, national, or VIP security;
Fiscal year: 1999: $2.996;
Fiscal year: 2000: $8.139;
Fiscal year: 2001: $12.770;
Fiscal year: 2002: $19.110;
Fiscal year: 2003: $19.712;
Total: 62.727;
Percentage of total: 28.8%.
Weapons of mass destruction related training;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $2.677;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.679;
Fiscal year: 2002: $4.565;
Fiscal year: 2003: $3.357;
Total: 11.278;
Percentage of total: 5.2%.
Total;
Fiscal year: 1999: $7.105;
Fiscal year: 2000: $22.473;
Fiscal year: 2001: $31.213[A];
Fiscal year: 2002: $49.007;
Fiscal year: 2003: $107.881;
Total: $217.679[A];
Percentage of total: 100.0%.
Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data.
[A] Fiscal year totals may not equal total of table 14 due to rounding.
[End of table]
Terrorist Interdiction Program:
The Terrorist Interdiction Program was established in 2000 to help
prevent terrorist activities by enhancing the ability of foreign
countries' law enforcement personnel to deter terrorists by (1)
installing and maintaining a computer database system in participant
countries that allows border control officials to quickly identify and
either detain or track suspect persons attempting to cross borders and
(2) increasing countries' capability to collect, compare, and analyze
traveler data to increase knowledge of terrorist movements. Country
participation is not geographically restricted.
Table 16 provides detailed information on program authorization,
activities, and implementation.
Table 16: Terrorist Interdiction Program:
Program authorization and activities.
Year established:
2000.
Legal authority for the program:
Chapter VIII, Part II, of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-
195), as amended;
While the Anti-terrorism Assistance Program addresses all facets of the
authorization in section 571 of the act, this program concentrates on
the authorization to provide training services, equipment, and other
commodities related to the detection, deterrence, and prevention of
acts of terrorism, the resolution of terrorist incidents, and the
apprehension of those involved in such acts;
The President's authority under this act is restricted by only two
other provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act: (1) 22 U.S.C. 2304
regarding provision of security assistance to countries that engage in
a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights, and (2) 22
U.S.C. 2371 regarding provision of assistance to governments supporting
terrorism;
The act also does not limit the countries to which the President can
provide the assistance. However, the Assistant Secretary of State for
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor must be consulted when determining
recipient foreign countries;
The program's unobligated funds must be returned to the U.S. Treasury
at the end of the fiscal year.
General program objectives:
The program's overall mission is to (1) enhance the security of
Americans at home and abroad by strengthening international cooperation
in the fight against terrorism and (2) help participating countries
improve their ability to track and monitor the movements of known or
suspected terrorists.
Types of activities funded:
The program's primary assistance is to provide a centralized country
database of cross-border travelers. To do this, the program procures,
delivers, installs, and maintains a U.S.-created database known as the
Personal Identification Secure Comparison and Evaluation System, which
enables a country to quickly identify, detain, or track the movement of
suspected persons attempting to enter or leave the country. Deployment
of the system can range from one location, such as an international
airport, to all of the country's international air, land, and sea entry/
exit points;
The program provides assessments of a country's need for such a system
and will develop software that meets the country's requirements. The
program also will train customs and immigration officials of
participating countries on the system use and help the start-up of the
program.
Annual appropriations (in millions of dollars) for fiscal years 1999
through 2004 and the fiscal year 2005 request;
Fiscal years;
2000 - $1.25;
2001 - $4;
2002 - $18;
2003 - $5;
2004 - $5;
2005 request - $5.
Program implementation:
Managing unit within the Department of State;
Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism who reports directly to
the Deputy Secretary of State.
Project selection process;
This program considers the following factors when selecting countries
to receive assistance: (1) known terrorist activities--especially
threats to the United States or U.S. interests, (2) known terrorist
transit points, (3) a country's need for a personal identification
system, and (4) the political will of a country to participate.
Source: Department of State program officials and legislation.
[End of table]
The Terrorist Interdiction Program primarily funded the installation
and maintenance of the Personal Identification Secure Comparison and
Evaluation System in several countries since fiscal year 2000. Table 17
lists those countries and the expenditures for each country. The cost
figures, however, do not represent the funds provided to the countries
or the sole cost of equipment or services provided. The figures
generally represent the costs of software development, including
contractor engineering labor, hardware, travel expenses, and program
administration associated with the project for a particular country.
Table 17: Terrorist Interdiction Program Funding Estimates, by Country,
Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003:
Dollars in millions.
Afghanistan;
Funding: $0.53;
Percentage of total program funding: 5.5.
Cambodia[A];
Funding: $0.2;
Percentage of total program funding: 2.1%.
Ethiopia[A];
Funding: $0.7;
Percentage of total program funding: 7.3%.
Ghana[A];
Funding: $0.2;
Percentage of total program funding: 2.1%.
Kenya[A];
Funding: $0.9;
Percentage of total program funding: 9.3%.
Pakistan;
Funding: $1.9;
Percentage of total program funding: 19.7%.
Tanzania;
Funding: $0.7;
Percentage of total program funding: 7.3%.
Yemen;
Funding: $2.5;
Percentage of total program funding: 26.0%.
Multicountry demonstration and management consultations in 2002;
(Algeria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Croatia, Ethiopia, Ghana,
India, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Macedonia,
Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Philippines, Senegal, Tanzania,
Thailand, Uruguay, and United Arab Emirates);
Funding: $2.0;
Percentage of total program funding: 20.8%.
Total;
Funding: $9.63;
Percentage of total program funding: 100.1[B]%.
Source: Department of State Office of the Coordinator for
Counterterrorism.
[A] These countries also benefited from the multicountry project
listed.
[B] Percentage total does not add to 100 due to rounding.
[End of table]
Additional Anti-terrorism Activities Funded through the NADR Account:
In addition to the two major programs, the NADR appropriations account
included funding for some additional anti-terrorism activities that
were more narrowly focused. We did not conduct in-depth review of these
activities because they were generally more limited in scope than the
activities discussed above. The additional activities include the
following:
* Counterterrorism Engagement with Allies funds workshops and
conferences to help improve the capability of the United States and
interested governments to respond to terrorist incidents overseas
involving weapons of mass destruction. In fiscal year 2004, according
to agency officials, those activities will be funded through the Anti-
terrorism Assistance Program.
* The Israel Counterterrorism Assistance was a one-time emergency
funding in fiscal year 2002 to help replace the Israeli government's
law enforcement bomb detection equipment that was destroyed during the
multiple terrorist attacks in 2001.
* The United States provided a one-time payment in fiscal year 2001
through the NADR account to the government of the Netherlands in
support of the Lockerbie Trial to cover a portion of the costs of the
international trial of the suspects responsible for the 1988 terrorist
bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
* For fiscal year 2005, funds have been requested for the
Counterterrorism Financing Program that would provide training and
technical assistance to combat terrorist financing.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Regional Stability and Humanitarian Assistance Programs
Funded through the Department of State's NADR Account:
The Department of State's regional stability and humanitarian
assistance programs funded through the NADR account are designed to
promote peace and regional stability, as well as meet humanitarian
needs in post-conflict situations. These programs work to achieve U.S.
national security interests by supporting demining activities and the
destruction of small arms and light weapons in areas that have suffered
from hostilities. There are two major programs supporting regional
stability and humanitarian assistance: the Humanitarian Demining
Program and the Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction Program. The NADR
account also includes funding for an additional demining activity.
Humanitarian Demining Program:
The Humanitarian Demining Program was established in 1997 to help
achieve U.S. regional stability and humanitarian assistance foreign
policy goals by
(1) reducing land mine casualties worldwide;
(2) developing conditions that allow people in areas ravaged by
hostilities to return home in safety;
(3) restoring land to productive use;
(4) revitalizing commercial infrastructure to restore economic
health;
and (5) extending U.S. bilateral, regional, and international
influence. There is no geographic restriction for program activities
and appropriated funds are available until expended.
Table 18 provides detailed information on program authorization and
activities as well as program implementation. Table 19 provides data on
program funding by country and type of activity for the fiscal years
1999 through the budget request for 2005.
Table 18: Humanitarian Demining Program:
Year established: 1997.
Legal authority for the program:
Section 551 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195), as
amended;
Under amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act, both the Humanitarian
Demining Program and Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction Program are
authorized to provide assistance to friendly countries and
international organizations for peacekeeping-related programs that
further U.S. national security interests. The Humanitarian Demining
Program directs its funding for demining-related activities, which
include the removal and destruction of land mines and unexploded
ordnance in former combat areas. This program also has grant-making
authority to help facilitate its mission;
The act does not limit the countries to which the President can provide
the authorized assistance;
The program's unobligated funds must be returned to the U.S. Treasury
at the end of the fiscal year.
General program objectives:
The main objectives of the program are to:
* Save the lives of innocent civilians and reduce the number of land
mine casualties around the world;
* Develop conditions that will allow refugees and internally displaced
persons to return to their homes in safety;
* Restore agricultural and pastoral land to productive use;
* Revitalize industrial, commercial, and high-use infrastructure to
restore economic health; and;
* Extend U.S. bilateral, regional, and international influence.
Types of activities funded:
The focus of the program's funding is to help establish and support
sustainable indigenous capabilities for addressing the issue of
dangerous mines in a country. To do this, the program has funded
activities such as (1) activities related to the clearance of land
mines and unexploded ordnance in a specific country by a contractor or
a nongovernmental organization, (2) providing workshops and classes for
people living in mine-affected regions to teach them about the dangers
of land mines and how to keep themselves safe, (3) administering
surveys that assess the land mine problem in a country to find out
where the most severe impact is and then prioritize a national mine
clearance plan, (4) fund research and training for those who run mine
action programs to ensure that programs are run effectively, and (5)
administer cross-cutting initiatives that provide mine action
assistance and resources to multiple countries.
Annual appropriations (in millions of dollars) for fiscal years 1999
through 2004 and the fiscal year 2005 request;
Fiscal years;
1999 - $35;
2000 - $40;
2001 - $39.9;
2002 - $43[A];
2003 - $49[B];
2004 - $50;
2005 request - $59.
Program implementation:
Managing unit within the Department of State;
On October 2, 2003, the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs realigned
its (1) Office of Humanitarian Demining Programs, (2) Office of Mine
Action Initiatives and Partnerships, and (3) Small Arms/Light Weapons
Section of its Office of Plans, Policy and Analysis into a new Office
of Weapons Removal and Abatement. Prior to that date, the Humanitarian
Demining Program was a separate office within the Bureau of Political-
Military Affairs.
Project selection process;
The selection of activities to fund generally starts when a mine-
affected country requests U.S. assistance through the U.S. embassy.
Upon endorsement by the embassy, the request will be forwarded to a
U.S. government interagency Policy Coordinating Committee Executive
Steering Group on humanitarian mine action. The steering group is
chaired by the Department of State, with the Department of Defense as
vice-chair. The overall Policy Coordinating Committee is chaired by the
National Security Council and is responsible for approving and
coordinating U.S. humanitarian demining programs;
Upon receiving the request, the Executive Steering Group is responsible
for determining whether to conduct a Policy Assessment Visit to the
country to evaluate the nature of the mine problem, the requesting
country's resources, its commitment to solving the problem, and the
suitability of U.S. assistance. Based on this assessment, the Policy
Coordinating Committee may approve the establishment of a formal
program for the country;
As a country develops its mine clearance capabilities, a Policy
Coordinating Subgroup has responsibility for periodically evaluating
the development of the program. When the country's program is
considered self- sustainable, the United States will pass off its
active role to the country;
For the actual implementation of projects, demining program funding is
distributed through commercial contracts as well as through grants to
nongovernmental organizations and international organizations.
Source: Department of State program officials and legislation.
[A] Includes $3 million from the fiscal year 2002 Emergency Response
Fund.
[B] Includes $3 million from the fiscal year 2003 Emergency
Supplemental.
[End of table]
Table 19: Funding by the Humanitarian Demining Program, by Country/
Region and Type of Activity, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
Dollars in millions.
Afghanistan;
Type of project: C, M, T;
Fiscal year: 1999: $2.62;
Fiscal year: 2000: $3.0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $3.0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $4.0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $9.0;
Fiscal year: Total: 21.62;
Percentage of total: 9.91%.
Albania/Macedonia;
Type of project: M;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.34;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.12;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Fiscal year: Total: 0.46;
Percentage of total: 0.21%.
Angola;
Type of project: C, M, S;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.2;
Fiscal year: 2000: $3.1;
Fiscal year: 2001: $2.84;
Fiscal year: 2002: $3.85;
Fiscal year: 2003: $3.6;
Fiscal year: Total: 13.59;
Percentage of total: 6.25%.
Angola/Mozambique;
Type of project: T;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.54;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.05;
Fiscal year: Total: 0.59;
Percentage of total: 0.27%.
Armenia;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.3;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.85;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.2;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.25;
Fiscal year: Total: 2.60;
Percentage of total: 1.20%.
Azerbaijan;
Type of project: C, M;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.72;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.19;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.38;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.60;
Fiscal year: Total: 4.89;
Percentage of total: 2.25%.
Bosnia-Herezgovina;
Type of project: C, S;
Fiscal year: 1999: $2.31;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.3;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Fiscal year: Total: 3.61;
Percentage of total: 1.66%.
Cambodia;
Type of project: C, M;
Fiscal year: 1999: $1.5;
Fiscal year: 2000: $2.58;
Fiscal year: 2001: $2.48;
Fiscal year: 2002: $2.29;
Fiscal year: 2003: $2.77;
Fiscal year: Total: 11.62;
Percentage of total: 5.35%.
Chad;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.73;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.62;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.3;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.35;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.5;
Fiscal year: Total: 2.50;
Percentage of total: 1.15%.
Colombia;
Type of project: M;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.1;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.15;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Fiscal year: Total: 0.25;
Percentage of total: 0.12%.
Croatia;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.6;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Fiscal year: Total: 0.6;
Percentage of total: 0.28%.
Djibouti;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.75;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.4;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.4;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.35;
Fiscal year: Total: 1.90;
Percentage of total: 0.87%.
Ecuador;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $1.0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.96;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.36;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Fiscal year: Total: 3.32;
Percentage of total: 1.53%.
Eritrea;
Type of project: C, M, S;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.17;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.72;
Fiscal year: 2003: $2.48;
Fiscal year: Total: 6.37;
Percentage of total: 2.93%.
Estonia;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.34;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.3;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.2;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.24;
Fiscal year: Total: 1.08;
Percentage of total: 0.50%.
Ethiopia;
Type of project: C, M, S;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.68;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.15;
Fiscal year: 2002: $2.18;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.45;
Fiscal year: Total: 3.46;
Percentage of total: 1.59%.
Georgia;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.03;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.1;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.05;
Fiscal year: Total: 3.18;
Percentage of total: 1.46%.
Guinea-Bissau;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.10;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.49;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.23;
Fiscal year: Total: 0.82;
Percentage of total: 0.38%.
Horn of Africa;
Type of project: T;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.38;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Fiscal year: Total: 0.38;
Percentage of total: 0.17%.
Iraq;
Type of project: C, M, T;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $3.2;
Fiscal year: Total: 3.2;
Percentage of total: 1.47%.
Jordan;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $1.9;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.51;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.95;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.85;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.89;
Fiscal year: Total: 6.10;
Percentage of total: 2.81%.
Kosovo;
Type of project: C, M, S;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.5;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.69;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Fiscal year: Total: 1.19;
Percentage of total: 0.55%.
Laos;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $1.8;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.49;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.99;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.33;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.18;
Fiscal year: Total: 6.79;
Percentage of total: 3.12%.
Lebanon;
Type of project: C, M;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.53;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.37;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.16;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.2;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.48;
Fiscal year: Total: 5.74;
Percentage of total: 2.64%.
Mauritania;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.53;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.46;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.4;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Fiscal year: Total: 1.39;
Percentage of total: 0.64%.
Mozambique;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $1.9;
Fiscal year: 2000: $3.84;
Fiscal year: 2001: $2.18;
Fiscal year: 2002: $2.11;
Fiscal year: 2003: $2.63;
Fiscal year: Total: 12.66;
Percentage of total: 5.82%.
Namibia;
Type of project: C, M;
Fiscal year: 1999: $1.05;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.49;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.08;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.13;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.6;
Fiscal year: Total: 2.35;
Percentage of total: 1.08%.
Nicaragua;
Type of project: M;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.2;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Fiscal year: Total: 0.2;
Percentage of total: 0.09%.
Nigeria;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.45;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Fiscal year: Total: 1.45;
Percentage of total: 0.67%.
North Caucasus;
Type of project: M;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.1;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Fiscal year: Total: 0.1;
Percentage of total: 0.05%.
OAS (Honduras, Costa Rica, Guatemala, & Nicaragua);
Type of project: C;
[Empty];
Fiscal year: 1999: $2.24;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.9;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.35;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.92;
Fiscal year: 2003: $1.51;
Fiscal year: Total: 8.92;
Percentage of total: 4.10%.
Oman;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.02;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.27;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.50;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Fiscal year: Total: 1.79;
Percentage of total: 0.82%.
Peru;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $1.0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.86;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Fiscal year: Total: 2.86;
Percentage of total: 1.32%.
Rwanda;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.75;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.29;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.4;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.35;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.38;
Fiscal year: Total: 2.17;
Percentage of total: 1.00%.
Somalia;
Type of project: C, M;
Fiscal year: 1999: $1.25;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.4;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.4;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.2;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.45;
Fiscal year: Total: 5.7;
Percentage of total: 2.62%.
Sri Lanka;
Type of project: C, M;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $2.55;
Fiscal year: Total: 2.55;
Percentage of total: 1.17%.
Sudan;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.90;
Fiscal year: Total: 0.90;
Percentage of total: 0.41%.
Thailand;
Type of project: C, T;
Fiscal year: 1999: $1.05;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.22;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.27;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.87;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Fiscal year: Total: 4.41;
Percentage of total: 2.03%.
Vietnam;
Type of project: C, M;
Fiscal year: 1999: $1.10;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.0;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.65;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.68;
Fiscal year: 2003: $2.55;
Fiscal year: Total: 7.98;
Percentage of total: 3.67%.
Yemen;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $1.46;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.24;
Fiscal year: 2001: $1.02;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.75;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.75;
Fiscal year: Total: 5.22;
Percentage of total: 2.40%.
Zambia;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0;
Fiscal year: 2000: $0.01;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.7;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.82;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.45;
Fiscal year: Total: 1.98;
Percentage of total: 0.91%.
Zimbabwe;
Type of project: C;
Fiscal year: 1999: $0.74;
Fiscal year: 2000: $1.15;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.60;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Fiscal year: Total: 2.49;
Percentage of total: 1.15%.
Multiple countries;
Type of project: Cross cutting, miscellaneous surveys, research &
administrative;
Fiscal year: 1999: $7.04;
Fiscal year: 2000: $10.65;
Fiscal year: 2001: $13.63;
Fiscal year: 2002: $8.19;
Fiscal year: 2003: $6.89;
Fiscal year: Total: 46.40;
Percentage of total: 21.35%.
Total;
Fiscal year: 1999: $34.48;
Fiscal year: 2000: $45.11;
Fiscal year: 2001: $44.60;
Fiscal year: 2002: $44.21;
Fiscal year: 2003: $48.98;
Fiscal year: Total: $217.38;
Percentage of total: 100.01[A]%.
Legend: C = Clearance M = Mine risk education S = Survey T = Training:
Source: Department of State Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement.
[A] Percentage total does not add to 100 due to rounding.
[End of table]
Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction Program:
The Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction Program was established in
2001 to support the destruction of surplus and illicit stocks of
military small arms and light weapons worldwide by funding programs
that destroy easily transportable weapons in other countries. Small
arms/light weapons generally refers to military-style automatic rifles,
machine guns, man-portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles,
rocket-propelled grenades, and light mortars. These weapons are a major
source of arms for terrorists, criminals, and violent insurgent groups.
There is no geographic restriction for program activities and
appropriated funds are available until expended.
Table 20 provides detailed information on program authorization and
activities as well as program implementation. Table 21 provides data on
program funding by country for fiscal years 2001 through 2003.
Table 20: Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction Program:
Program authorization and activities:
Year established: 2001.
Legal authority for the program:
Section 581, of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, (P.L. 87-195), as
amended, and Section 504 of the Freedom Support Act (P.L. 102-511), as
amended. The Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction Program directs it's
funding for the destruction of surplus and illicit stocks of military
small arms and light weapons;
The act does not limit the countries to which the President can provide
the authorized assistance;
The program's unobligated funds must be returned to the U.S. Treasury
at the end of the fiscal year.
General program objectives:
General program objectives include:
* The destruction of surplus and illicit stocks of military small arms/
light weapons,
* Support for U.S. national interests in promoting regional stability,
* Minimizing threats to civilian populations and combating crime,
* Rebuilding post-conflict societies, and;
* Protecting U.S. and allied personnel deployed overseas.
Types of activities funded:
The Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction program funds:
* The destruction of surplus and illicit stocks of military small arms/
light weapons and related ammunition worldwide and;
* Training on physical security and stockpile management to interested
countries. (This portion of the program is a joint effort with the
Department of Defense's Defense Threat Reduction Agency.).
Annual appropriations (in millions of dollars) for fiscal years 1999
through 2004 and the fiscal year 2005 request;
Fiscal years;
2001 - $2;
2002 - $3;
2003 - $3;
2004 - $3;
2005 request - $9.
Program implementation:
Managing unit within the Department of State;
The program is located in the new Office of Weapons Removal and
Abatement in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Undersecretary
for Arms Control and International Security. Prior to fiscal year 2004,
the program was a separate program in the Office of Plans, Policies,
and Analysis in the Department of State Bureau of Political-Military
Affairs.
Project selection process;
Due to the relatively small size of this program, project selection is
based on information regarding countries with excess weapons or poor
weapon security. Program officials receive information regarding
potential participant countries through the following formal and
informal channels: ;
* Receiving information from the Department of State's Regional Bureaus
or directly from an embassy overseas;
* Monitoring the Department of State Political and Military Attache
reports on the conditions of host country arms facilities or post-civil
war accounts of country status;
* Providing assistance to the Humanitarian Demining Program in certain
countries where there is an abundance of small arms/ light weapons
after the demining teams have completed their projects;
* Monitoring the multiple small arms related publications and databases
published by the United Nations and attending international conferences
related to small arms/light weapons proliferation, child soldiers, and
illegal arms trafficking;
and;
* Reading the daily classified and nonclassified cable traffic at the
Department of State for information on countries with excess weapons or
poor stockpile management;
Typically, after a country has been recognized as having excess small
arms/light weapons, program officials will usually approach the host
country with the Physical Security and Stockpile Management of Small
Arms and Light Weapons training. After this training, the program
officials will offer to destroy the excess weapons that the training
has highlighted;
There are some cases, however, where host country officials will only
ask for training regarding physical security and stockpile management
or will only ask for the destruction of their excess small arms/light
weapons.
Source: Department of State program officials and legislation.
[End of table]
Table 21: Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction Program Funding, by
Country, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2003:
Dollars in millions.
Albania;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.625;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.45;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.35;
Total: $1.425;
Percentage of total: 17.8.
Angola;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.069;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.5;
Total: 0.569;
Percentage of total: 7.1.
Bulgaria;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.964;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.98;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.4;
Total: 2.344;
Percentage of total: 29.3.
El Salvador;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.05;
Total: 0.05;
Percentage of total: 0.6.
Guinea;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.103;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.05;
Total: 0.153;
Percentage of total: 1.9.
Lesotho;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.015;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: 0.015;
Percentage of total: 0.2.
Liberia;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.2;
Total: 0.2;
Percentage of total: 2.5.
Mozambique;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.149;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: 0.149;
Percentage of total: 1.9.
Philippines;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.095;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.155;
Total: 0.25;
Percentage of total: 3.1.
Romania;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $1.062;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.307;
Total: 1.369;
Percentage of total: 17.1.
Senegal;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0.092;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0;
Total: 0.092;
Percentage of total: 1.2.
Serbia and Monetenegro;
Fiscal year: 2001: $0.396;
Fiscal year: 2002: $0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $0.988;
Total: 1.384;
Percentage of total: 17.3.
Total;
Fiscal year: 2001: $2.0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $3.0;
Fiscal year: 2003: $3.0;
Total: $8.0;
Percentage of total: 100.
Source: Department of state Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement.
[End of table]
Additional Regional Stability and Humanitarian Assistance Program
Funded through the NADR Account:
In addition, the NADR appropriations account included funding for an
additional activity. The United Sates provides matching funds to the
Republic of Slovenia International Trust Fund for Mine Action and
Victims' Assistance for demining activities in the Balkan countries. We
did not conduct in-depth review of this activity because the U.S. role
is more limited in scope than in the activities discussed above.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State
Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
Washington, D. C. 20520:
APR - 2 2004:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "DEPARTMENT
OF STATE: Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related
Programs Follow Legal Authority, But Some Activities Need
Reassessment," GAO-04-521, GAO Job Code 320216.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Michael Foughty, Foreign Affairs Officer, Bureau of Nonproliferation,
at (202) 736-4245.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Christopher B. Burnham:
cc: GAO - Beverly Bendekgey
NP - Susan Burk
State/OIG - Luther Atkins
State/H - Paul Kelly:
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report Nonproliferation,
Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs Follow Legal Authority,
But Some Activities Need Reassessment (GAO-04-521, GAO Job Code
320216):
The Department of State appreciates the opportunity to review and
comment on the draft Report "Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism,
Demining, and Related Programs Follow Legal Authority, But Some
Activities Need Reassessment." These programs cover a range of
important initiatives in vital areas of security and humanitarian
policy, providing flexible, cost-effective tools to address rapidly
evolving challenges from WMD proliferation and international terrorism,
and the widespread dangers posed to innocent civilians by abandoned
landmines. These programs have enjoyed consistent support from the
Congress; several are expanding their scope to take advantage of new
opportunities in areas of concern to the Global War on Terror and the
President's nonproliferation initiatives.
The Department takes exception to the report's relegation of the United
States' voluntary contribution to the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) to non-major program status, although we acknowledge
that, in the context of this report, GAO apparently does not intend
this to diminish the importance of this program. In terms of
appropriated dollars, this is the second largest NADR nonproliferation
program; the appropriation for the U.S. voluntary contribution has been
at least at the $50 million level since FY 2001. While certainly
singularly focussed on the IAEA, it is not a "limited" program, but
global in application and indispensable in its contribution to the
mission of the IAEA and U.S. nonproliferation objectives.
We note several factual errors regarding the Nonproliferation and
Disarmament Fund (NDF). The report states (page 12) that the Department
of State has earmarked at least half of its fiscal year 2004 budget
request. The Department has not earmarked any NDF funds for Fiscal Year
(FY) 2004 nor does it plan to do so in future fiscal years. NDF funds
can only be committed to fund specific projects through the NDF Review
Process and then only after funds have been appropriated by Congress.
Because of the delay in the FY 2004 appropriation and the need to clear
Libyan related expenditures first, the bulk of NDF's funds remained
unobligated as April 1,
2004. It has had more than sufficient funds to handle the unanticipated
nonproliferation requirements in Libya.
Second, the NDF is not a contingency fund awaiting opportunities.
Rather, it is integral to the set of diplomatic and negotiating tools
available to achieve nonproliferation objectives. The Department of
State often uses it to create opportunities, start new initiatives or
programs (e.g., DMI or Tracker), and undertake unique or unusually
difficult work. Its projects include both short term, one-time missions
and longer-term activities of considerable technological and political
complexity. Because its funds are uncommitted until well into the
fiscal year, it also provides senior policymakers a means of dealing
with unanticipated opportunities and problems.
Third, the NDF has funded export control related projects in the past
and expects to receive project proposals to do so in the future (for
example, an Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance
(EXBS) project in Libya this year if EXBS program funds are
unavailable). We have notified Congress of export control related
projects, briefed Congressional staff, and stated our intentions in the
President's budget consistently over the years. The 1996 conference
report language reflected the concerns of Congressional staff about the
NDF being the sole source of export control assistance funding. The
Department responded to these concerns by creating an export control
assistance account in FY 1998.
The Department concurs with GAO's finding that the Tracker program
should be better integrated into the export control assessments and
country program plans of the EXBS program. We will have Tracker
deployments integrated into all EXBS country program plans by June 30,
2004. The EXBS program office will determine in consultation with the
host country, posts and other offices in the Departments Bureau of
Nonproliferation including the NDF office, the timing of all future
Tracker deployments to countries currently participating - or likely to
participate - in the EXBS program. In addition, all EXBS program
advisors resident in countries where Tracker already has been deployed
have been instructed to report regularly on the system's usage and
forward any host government recommendations and requests related to the
system. This is an oversight and monitoring function the EXBS program
advisors also perform for other U.S. Governments nonproliferation
assistance efforts.
The decision to deploy Tracker to Central European countries was
coordinated several years ago and we are currently unaware of any
duplication of effort related to this deployment between NDF and the
EXBS program in this region. These countries generally have well
developed laws, regulations, and export control infrastructures, most
are members of NATO and are about to become EU members and thus are
well suited to Tracker deployments.
[End of section]
(320216):
FOOTNOTES
[1] The seven major programs funded through the NADR account that we
focused on are (1) the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund, (2) the
Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance Program, (3) the
Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection Program, (4) Anti-terrorism
Assistance Program, (5) Terrorist Interdiction Program, (6)
Humanitarian Demining Program, and (7) Small Arms/Light Weapons
Destruction Program.
[2] The Department of Commerce has participated in project
implementation for this program.
[3] H. Rept. 105-401 accompanying the Foreign Appropriations Export
Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Bill for 1997, Pub. L.
105-118.
[4] H. Rept. 105-401 on "Making Appropriations for Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and Related Programs for the Fiscal Year Ending
September 30, 1998, and For Other Purposes;" November 12, 1997.
[5] First appearing in H. Rept. 104-600 (1996) on "Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 1997"; May
29, 1996. Similar language appears in committee reports through fiscal
year 2001. See also H. Rept. 105-176 (1997), H. Rept. 105-719 (1998),
H. Rept. 106-254 (1999), and H. Rept. 106-720 (2000).
[6] See 55 Comp. Gen. 307, 325 ("[A]s a general proposition, there is a
distinction to be made between utilizing legislative history for the
purpose of illuminating the intent underlying language used in a
statute and resorting to that history for the purpose of writing into
law that which is not there.").
[7] Prepared testimony of Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State, before
the Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations, May 15, 2001.
[8] We did not explore, as part of this review, whether similar
situations had arisen in the past.
[9] H. Rept. 104-600, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Bill, 1997, May 29, 1996.
[10] Prior to establishment of State's Export Control and Related
Border Security Assistance Program in fiscal year 1998, Commerce did
engage in some coordinated efforts with the NDF in the initial stages
of the development of the Tracker system.
[11] The Humanitarian Demining Program also uses grants with
nongovernmental and international organizations.
[12] This program has also been referred to as the Science Centers and
BioRedirection (or Biotechnology Redirection) Program in the past. The
program is referred to as the Nonproliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction Expertise Program in the fiscal year 2005 budget request.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting 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. General Accounting 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.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548: