GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Committees

March 2000 COOPERATIVE 

THREAT REDUCTION

DOD’s 1997-98 Reports 

on Accounting for 

Assistance Were Late 

and Incomplete

GAO/NSIAD-00-40

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: Equipment Transferred by the Department of

Defense to Recipient States From October 1, 1997, Through

December 31, 1997 24

Appendix II: Department of Defense Projects for Which No

Information Was Given on the Condition of Assistance

Provided 27

Appendix III: Department of Defense Projects for Which No

Determination Was Made About the Usage of Assistance

Provided for the Intended Purposes 29

Appendix IV: Comments From the Department of Defense 31

Figures Figure 1: Lateness of Department of Defense Cooperative

Threat Reduction Accounting Reports, 1994-98 7

Figure 2: Percent of Cooperative Threat Reduction

Expenditures Spent on Equipment Transferred to

Former Soviet States, 1993-98 10

Figure 3: Cooperative Threat Reduction Expenditures

Compared to the Value of Equipment Transferred, 1993-98 11

Abbreviation

DOD Department of Defense
Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction
Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-284030 Letr

March 15, 2000

Congressional Committees

Since 1992, Congress has authorized the Department of Defense (DOD) to 

obligate almost $3.2 billion for DOD’s Cooperative Threat Reduction 

program. This program is intended to help former Soviet states (1) destroy 

their weapons of mass destruction, (2) safely store and transport such 

weapons in connection with their destruction, and (3) reduce the risk of 

their proliferation. The program provides most of its assistance in the form 

of goods and services, including equipment, logistics support, training, and 

integrated project management. 

To help guard against the possibility that recipient states could misuse this 

assistance, Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to prepare an 

annual report on U.S. efforts to account for the assistance and ensure its 

proper use.1

 The Secretary is required to submit an accounting report to 

Congress by January 31st of each year.2 The report is to include (1) a list of 

Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance provided, (2) a description of the 

current location and condition of the assistance provided, (3) a 

determination of whether the assistance has been used for its intended 

purpose, and (4) a description of the activities planned for the next year to 

ensure that the assistance is fully accounted for and used for its intended 

purpose. In addition, reports submitted after September 30, 1999, are to 

include specific information regarding Russia’s arsenal of tactical nuclear 

warheads.3

To date, DOD has provided Congress with five reports on Cooperative 

Threat Reduction assistance. In each case, DOD summarized its auditing 

and examinations activities and concluded that the former Soviet states 

were using the assistance as intended. DOD’s two most recently submitted 

reports covered calendar years 1997 and 1998.

1

 Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (P.L. 104-106).

2

 For example, DOD is required to submit its accounting report for 1999 to Congress by 

January 31, 2000. 

3

 Section 1312 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (P.L. 106-65).
B-284030

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

Congress has directed the Comptroller General of the United States to 

assess each of DOD’s accounting reports after DOD submits them to 

Congress.4

 Accordingly, this report assesses DOD’s two most recent 

accounting reports in terms of 

• each report’s compliance with its respective deadline for submission to 

Congress; and 

• the accuracy and completeness of each report, specifically the extent to 

which it lists all of the assistance provided; describes the assistance’s 

location and condition; provides a determination regarding whether the 

assistance was used for its intended purpose; includes DOD’s plans to 

account for the assistance during the following year; and, for the 1998 

report, contains specific information on Russia’s arsenal of tactical 

nuclear warheads.5

Results in Brief DOD was 16 months late in submitting its Cooperative Threat Reduction 

accounting report for 1997 to Congress and more than 10 months late in 

submitting its report for 1998 to Congress. The delays associated with both 

reports were primarily due to DOD’s prolonged review of the draft reports 

and the relatively low priority that its officials placed on ensuring the 

reports’ timely submission. The 1998 report’s submission was also delayed 

because DOD did not clearly communicate to the Department of State the 

type of information State needed to provide DOD for the report and the 

deadline for its submission. These delays denied Congress information 

concerning the status of previous assistance provided to the former Soviet 

states while Congress considered the appropriation of fiscal year 1999 and 

2000 funds for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. 

4

 For GAO’s assessments of previous reports, please refer to Weapons of Mass Destruction: 

DOD Reporting on Cooperative Threat Reduction Assistance Can Be Improved 

(NSIAD-95-191, Sept. 29, 1995); Weapons of Mass Destruction: DOD Reporting on 

Cooperative Threat Reduction Assistance Has Improved (NSIAD-97-84, Feb. 27, 1997); and 

Cooperative Threat Reduction: Review of DOD’s June 1997 Report on Assistance Provided

(NSIAD-97-218, Sept. 5, 1997).

5

Section 1206 of Public Law 104-106 requires the Comptroller General to provide this 

assessment within 30 days of DOD’s submission of an accounting report. Not long after DOD 

submitted the accounting report for 1997 in June 1999, DOD officials informed us that they 

would submit the 1998 report by the end of August 1999. Accordingly, we notified your 

Committees in July 1999 that we would provide a combined assessment of both reports 

once DOD had submitted the 1998 report. However, DOD did not submit the report for 1998 

until December 1999. 
B-284030

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

DOD did not provide complete and fully accurate information in its 1997 

and 1998 accounting reports. For example, the reports

• failed to list more than $27 million of Cooperative Threat Reduction 

equipment that DOD provided to recipient states during a 3-month 

period in 1997; 

• listed only a single form of Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance−

equipment transferred to recipient states (that represented less than 19 

percent of the program’s 1997-98 expenditures)—rather than all 

assistance provided; 

• described where the equipment was located at the time of its transfer to 

the recipients’ custody (rather than where it was actually located at the 

time of the reports) and failed to describe the location or condition of 

other forms of assistance, such as contractor-provided services; 

• contained either unsupportable or overstated estimates of the 

percentage of equipment that DOD had audited in determining that 

assistance was being used as intended; and

• did not include complete information on how the Departments of State 

and Energy used Cooperative Threat Reduction funds, largely because 

DOD did not clearly communicate its information needs to those 

agencies.

In addition, the 1998 report did not include specific information on Russia’s 

arsenal of tactical nuclear warheads.

Our report recommends that the Secretary of Defense establish 

(1) mechanisms to ensure that future reports are submitted to Congress by 

January 31 of each year, (2) quality controls and processes to ensure that 

future reports contain more complete and accurate information, and 

(3) clear guidance to other executive branch agencies concerning the type 

of information that DOD needs and the deadline for submitting such 

information for future accounting reports.

Background The 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union left Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and 

Belarus with a legacy of about 30,000 nuclear weapons, 2,500 strategic 

nuclear delivery systems, and at least 40,000 metric tons of chemical 

weapons. In response, Congress authorized DOD to initiate a cooperative 

program to reduce the threat of former Soviet weapons of mass 

destruction. To date, DOD has obligated about $2.2 billion of the almost 

$3.2 billion that Congress has authorized for Cooperative Threat Reduction 

projects and expended about $1.7 billion. Most of these funds have been 
B-284030

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

allocated for destroying and dismantling weapons and delivery systems and 

for improving controls over nuclear weapons and materials.

DOD rarely provides Cooperative Threat Reduction funds directly to 

Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and other recipient states.6

 Instead, 

it generally hires contractors to perform specified tasks or obtains 

equipment for transfer to the custody of former Soviet states. DOD also 

uses Cooperative Threat Reduction funds to support activities managed by 

other executive branch agencies. For example, it has provided Cooperative 

Threat Reduction funds to the Department of Energy to help protect, 

control, and account for former Soviet nuclear materials. DOD has also 

provided Cooperative Threat Reduction funds to the Departments of State 

and Energy and to the Civilian Research and Development Foundation7

 to 

help support former Soviet weapons scientists who are now conducting 

peaceful research. The Department of State disperses its share of these 

funds through two international science and technology centers in Russia 

and Ukraine.8

 DOD officials told us that the Russian center will receive 

about $57 million in Cooperative Threat Reduction funds from the year 

2000 through 2005 to help reduce the threat of biological weapons 

proliferation. 

DOD relies on multiple methods to account for Cooperative Threat 

Reduction assistance and to ensure that it is used as intended. In addition 

to overseeing its contractors, DOD inspectors audit and examine 

equipment transferred to the custody of recipient states. DOD also sends 

Cooperative Threat Reduction program and project managers to review the 

progress of projects on-site. It relies on the Departments of Energy and 

State to ensure that Cooperative Threat Reduction funds provided to those 

agencies are being used as intended. For its program to help protect, 

control, and account for former Soviet nuclear materials, the Department 

6

 We have described Cooperative Threat Reduction efforts in greater detail in past reports, 

such as Weapons of Mass Destruction: Effort to Reduce Russian Arsenals May Cost More, 

Achieve Less Than Planned (GAO/NSIAD-99-76, Apr. 13, 1999) and Weapons of Mass 

Destruction: Status of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (GAO/NSIAD-96-222, 

Sept. 27, 1996).

7

 The Civilian Research and Development Foundation is a nongovernmental, nonprofit 

foundation.

8

 The international science and technology centers are multinational organizations funded 

by the United States, European Union, and four other countries. The Department of State is 

responsible for managing U.S. involvement in the science centers.
B-284030

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

of Energy has instituted a system that relies primarily on project managers 

to certify that the assistance it provides is being executed effectively and 

used for its intended purposes. For its grant program to former Soviet 

weapon scientists, the Department of Energy ensures that the terms of the 

grant agreements are being fulfilled through the receipt of specified 

deliverables, such as progress reports. The Department of State ensures 

that its science center grants are being used as intended through financial 

and program audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency.

DOD Was Late in 

Submitting the Reports 

to Congress

Under the terms of section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 1996, DOD was required to submit its accounting report for 

1997 by January 31, 1998, and its accounting report for 1998 by January 31, 

1999. However, DOD was 16 months late in submitting its report for 1997 

and more than 10 months late in submitting its report for 1998 (see fig. 1).

Figure 1: Lateness of Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction 

Accounting Reports, 1994-98

 Source: GAO analysis of DOD reports.

The reports for 1997 and 1998 were delayed primarily because they 

underwent numerous reviews at various levels in multiple offices within 

DOD. DOD officials noted that the length of the internal review process for 

both reports was compounded by the relatively low priority that the 
B-284030

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

reviewers placed on ensuring the reports’ timely submission, given other 

competing demands. In addition, DOD officials cited the number of other 

reports that they must provide Congress concerning the Cooperative 

Threat Reduction program as a factor delaying the accounting reports. Our 

review of routing slips and other documents confirmed that some 

reviewing offices held the draft reports for months as they identified and 

addressed concerns. 

In addition, DOD officials informed us that DOD was delayed in submitting 

the 1997 and 1998 reports because it had to wait while other agencies, 

particularly the Department of State, prepared needed information 

concerning their use of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds. However, our 

review of DOD routing slips for the 1997 report indicated that waiting for 

other agencies delayed DOD’s submission of the 1997 report by no more 

than 2 months. Our review of DOD routing slips for the 1998 report and 

discussions with DOD officials indicated that DOD waited approximately 

6 months for information from other agencies—including over 2 months 

spent waiting solely for the Department of State’s information. Once it 

decided to proceed without the Department of State’s information in July 

1999, DOD reviewed the draft for another 5 months before submitting it to 

Congress on December 13, 1999. 

We found no evidence that DOD had provided the Department of State with 

clear guidance as to when it should give DOD the information needed for 

the 1998 accounting report. Department of State officials informed us that 

they had been unclear about DOD’s information needs and were unaware 

DOD had delayed submitting a report to Congress while waiting for 

information from them. 

However, DOD officials have informed us that subsequent accounting 

reports should be submitted in a more timely fashion. They told us that 

they would no longer delay a future report’s submission to Congress while 

they awaited information from other agencies. Instead, DOD will submit 

information from these agencies separately or as an addendum to the 

accounting report. DOD officials also noted that Congress has changed the 

reporting period of future accounting reports from a calendar year basis to 

a fiscal year basis.9

 This change will allow DOD an additional 3 months 

9

 Section 1311 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (P.L. 106-65, 

Oct. 5, 1999).
B-284030

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

(October, November, and December) to prepare accounting reports for 

submission on January 31.

The Reports Contained 

Incomplete and 

Inaccurate Information 

According to section 1206 of the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1996, the Secretary of Defense’s annual accounting reports for Cooperative 

Threat Reduction must include (1) a list of assistance provided before the 

date of the report, (2) information on the location and condition of the 

assistance provided, (3) a determination regarding whether or not the 

assistance was used for the purposes intended, and (4) information on 

future activities to account for assistance. In its reports for calendar years 

1997 and 1998, DOD addressed each of these required topics. However, we 

found that both reports contained some incomplete, inaccurate, or vague 

information. 

The Lists of Assistance 

Provided Were Incomplete

Section 1206 states that each report must contain “a list of cooperative 

threat reduction assistance that has been provided before the date of the 

report.” Accordingly, we assessed both reports in terms of whether the lists 

that they included (1) were cumulative and (2) encompassed all 

Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance provided. 

Although DOD had provided cumulative lists in all of its previous reports, 

we found that it did not do so in its reports for 1997 and 1998. 

Notwithstanding statements in both reports that the lists that they included 

were “cumulative,” the 1997 report’s list covered only fiscal year 1997 and 

the 1998 report’s list covered only calendar year 1998.

Moreover, we also found that neither report included all of the assistance 

that was provided. Because the 1997 report’s list ends on September 31, 

1997, and the 1998 report’s list begins on January 1, 1998, neither list 

included assistance provided during the 3-month period that separates 

them. During that time, DOD sent approximately $27 million of equipment 

to former Soviet states (see app. I)—more than a third of all the equipment 

DOD sent to these states during calendar year 1997. 

We also found that the lists included only one type of assistance−equipment 

that the U.S. government has transferred to the custody of the recipient 

governments. While such equipment may be more vulnerable to misuse or 

diversion than other types of assistance, it has constituted a diminishing 

fraction of Cooperative Threat Reduction expenditures since 1996. As 

figure 2 shows, transferred equipment represented no more than 25 percent 
B-284030

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

($72.5 million) of the $288 million that the Cooperative Threat Reduction 

program expended in 1997 and only 12.5 percent ($37 million) of the $296 

million expended in 1998.

Figure 2: Percent of Cooperative Threat Reduction Expenditures Spent on 

Equipment Transferred to Former Soviet States, 1993-98

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.

Because DOD focused on equipment transfers, it omitted contractorprovided services—a major type of Cooperative Threat Reduction 

assistance. Such services include setting up computer systems and 

providing training on the systems, conducting environmental assessments, 

and performing heavy construction. DOD has also hired contractors to 

manage large, highly technical projects and to provide logistical support 

and maintenance for equipment provided. According to Department 

officials, the Cooperative Threat Reduction program has increasingly used 

contractors to provide assistance to former Soviet states. In part because 

DOD did not attempt to capture contractor-provided services in the lists, 

there is a notable disparity between the values of the assistance included in 

the list and total Cooperative Threat Reduction expenditures (see fig. 3). 
B-284030

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

Figure 3: Cooperative Threat Reduction Expenditures Compared to the Value of 

Equipment Transferred, 1993-98

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.

In its 1997 and 1998 reports, DOD also did not list all of the Cooperative 

Threat Reduction assistance provided by other agencies. We found a 

similar problem during our assessment of DOD’s 1996 accounting report. At 

that time, we recommended that the Secretary of Defense provide more 

complete information on the other agencies’ projects, including the values 

and types of assistance provided.10 In response, DOD concurred and stated 

that it would (1) convey our findings to the Departments of State and 

Energy and (2) undertake measures with the other departments to improve 

future reporting on their use of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds.

10 See Cooperative Threat Reduction: Review of DOD’s June 1997 Report on Assistance 

Provided.
B-284030

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

However, our review of DOD’s 1997 and 1998 accounting reports indicates 

that DOD has not effectively implemented such measures. DOD did not 

present in either report the degree of financial support it had given to the 

Departments of State and Energy and to the Civilian Research and 

Development Foundation. Nor did either report explain exactly how these 

entities used the Cooperative Threat Reduction funds that DOD transferred 

to them. Furthermore, the reports did not list all of the equipment or other 

forms of assistance provided by the other agencies using Cooperative 

Threat Reduction funds.11

DOD did not implement procedures for obtaining all needed information 

from the other agencies and ensuring that it is incorporated into the 

accounting reports. Department of State officials told us that they did not 

furnish DOD with such information because DOD had not provided them 

with clear guidance on its informational needs and that they were unaware 

that DOD required this information. Department of Energy officials stated 

that they provided information to DOD in accordance with the guidelines 

DOD gave them. DOD officials currently responsible for preparing the 

accounting reports informed us that they were not aware of any established 

procedures for obtaining needed data from other agencies. 

Information on the Location 

of Assistance Provided Was 

Incomplete and Sometimes 

Inaccurate

Section 1206 of the legislation states that the annual accounting reports 

must include “a description of the current location of the assistance 

provided.” In reviewing the 1997 and 1998 reports, we assessed whether 

DOD provided complete and accurate location information on all 

Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance. We found that DOD did not do so 

in either report.

11 DOD’s list is derived from a database of equipment shipped by DOD. The database is 

designed to include all equipment for which there has been a transfer of custody. In 1997, 

the Departments of State and Energy shipped some, but not all, of the Cooperative Threat 

Reduction equipment they had purchased through DOD. Therefore, only the equipment that 

was shipped through DOD appears in DOD’s database.
B-284030

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

DOD included location information for some of the assistance as part of 

each report’s list of equipment transferred to recipient states. However, it 

did not include location information for much of the assistance that was 

not included in the lists, such as assistance provided through other 

agencies. In addition, the location information included elsewhere in the 

reports could not be clearly linked to specific pieces of equipment. The 

reports noted that DOD officials had visited certain sites associated with 

particular projects. However, the reports did not identify the specific pieces 

of equipment the officials saw at these sites.12 DOD officials explained to us 

that they do not necessarily visit all of the sites where equipment may be 

located. Moreover, they do not attempt to account for all of the equipment 

that is located at each visited site. 

In addition, DOD’s lists did not always accurately reflect the location of the 

equipment during the periods covered. The locations identified in the lists 

indicated where DOD delivered and transferred the equipment. However, 

these locations were not necessarily where the equipment was located 

after the transfers were completed. DOD officials informed us that some 

equipment was shipped to its final location by the recipient government or 

a U.S. contractor after the transfer of custody had taken place. Department 

officials who maintain the equipment database informed us that such 

movements of equipment are not reflected in the database. Department 

officials were not able to quantify what proportion of transferred 

equipment was moved after the transfer of custody.

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated that it was preparing to 

make major revisions to the database that would enable DOD to identify 

the most current location of all assistance. DOD also stated that it would 

not include a cumulative list of assistance provided in future reports but 

would instead limit the list to the assistance rendered during the fiscal year 

covered by the report. Past reports in conjunction with future reports 

would provide Congress with a complete list of assistance provided. 

However, if DOD does not include cumulative lists of assistance in future 

accounting reports, these reports will not reflect changes to the location of 

assistance provided before the fiscal year covered in the reports.

12 DOD’s previous accounting reports specified the equipment that had been accounted for 

during audits and examinations conducted by DOD inspectors.
B-284030

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

Information on the 

Condition of the Assistance 

Provided Was Incomplete

Section 1206 requires that the annual accounting reports include “a 

description of the current condition” of Cooperative Threat Reduction 

assistance provided. In evaluating the 1997 and 1998 reports for this 

information, we assessed whether the reports clearly stated the condition 

of all assistance provided through the end of 1997 and 1998, respectively. 

We found that DOD provided incomplete and sometimes vague information 

in both reports on the condition of the assistance. For some Cooperative 

Threat Reduction projects managed by DOD, the reports included a 

statement to the effect that all of the equipment provided under the project 

was in working order, noting any specific exceptions. However, DOD did 

not provide information on the condition of the equipment it provided for 

about 33 percent of its projects described in the 1997 report and for more 

than 40 percent of its projects described in the 1998 report.13 These projects 

included the heavy bomber elimination project in Russia in the 1997 report 

and the SS-24 silo launcher and missile elimination project in Ukraine in the 

1998 report (see app. II). Furthermore, in neither report did DOD provide 

clear assessments of the condition of assistance provided through DOD 

contractors, the Departments of State and Energy, or the Civilian Research 

and Development Foundation.

DOD Cannot Fully Support 

Its Determination That 

Assistance Was Used as 

Intended

According to section 1206, the reports shall include “a determination of 

whether the assistance has been used for its intended purpose.” We 

therefore assessed whether the reports included such a determination and 

whether DOD presented reasonable evidence to support its conclusions. 

We found that DOD included an overall determination in the reports that 

the assistance had been used as intended. However, DOD’s presentation of 

these determinations and its supporting evidence raised questions 

regarding DOD’s ability to support the determinations.

We found that DOD officials were unable to substantiate a statement in the 

1997 report’s cover letter that DOD had accounted for two-thirds of the 

equipment transferred through 1997. In the cover letter, DOD stated that it 

had delivered equipment valued at $298 million through 1997 and that it had 

13 In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated that it could not physically verify the 

condition of all Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance. Instead, DOD felt that it could 

confidently ascertain the condition of all of the assistance by verifying the condition of a 

sample of assistance. The scope of our review did not include evaluating the adequacy of 

DOD’s sampling approach.
B-284030

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

accounted for about $200 million of this amount during 1997. However, 

DOD officials informed us that they could not identify the source of these 

figures or determine the actual value of the equipment that the audits 

accounted for. They attributed their inability to provide supporting 

documentation to personnel changes that have occurred in DOD since the 

1997 report was initially drafted. 

DOD officials subsequently revised their methodology for this calculation. 

DOD stated in the 1998 report’s cover letter that approximately 54 percent 

($177 million) of the equipment transferred (approximately $327 million) 

had been subject to audit and examination during 1998. However, DOD 

officials acknowledged that this calculation included at least some 

equipment—such as consumables and small value items—for which its 

auditors did not actually account.

In some cases, DOD also included individual determinations that 

assistance provided through specific DOD-managed projects had been used 

as intended. However, DOD did not include such determinations for about 

33 percent of its projects in 1997 and for more than 40 percent of its 

projects in 1998. These projects included Russian intercontinental ballistic 

missile launcher elimination in the 1997 report and Kazakhstani strategic 

bomber elimination in the 1998 report (see app. III).

The reports also contained relatively little information regarding other 

agencies’ use of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds to support DOD’s 

blanket assertion that the assistance was being used as intended. We found 

that in some cases additional information regarding this assistance could 

have been included in the reports if there had been clearer communication 

between the agencies involved.

• Neither report included information to support a determination that 

funds provided to the Department of Energy for former Soviet weapons 

scientists were being used as intended.14 Instead, the reports contained 

erroneous assertions that the Department of Energy audits its support 

for these scientists. Department of Energy officials informed us that 

rather than conduct audits of these projects, the Department only remits 

payment for projects after researchers have sent it the deliverables 

14 The 1998 report’s introduction referred readers to an annex in the report for more 

information on this program. However, our review found no information on this program in 

that annex or any other part of the report.
B-284030

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

specified in the grant agreements, such as progress reports. We found 

that DOD could have included detailed information about this program. 

Department of Energy officials informed us that they had provided DOD 

with reports on the program as requested by DOD. Cooperative Threat 

Reduction officials told us that they had received these reports but had 

not been instructed to forward them to the officials responsible for 

preparing the 1998 report. The officials responsible for preparing the 

1998 report later told us that they were unaware that the Department of 

Energy reports existed.

• The 1998 report did not provide information that would support a 

determination that the Department of State was using Cooperative 

Threat Reduction funds as intended at the international science and 

technology centers. Unlike the 1997 report, the 1998 report did not 

include financial audits of each science center or a summary of Defense 

Contract Audit Agency audits of individual projects using Cooperative 

Threat Reduction funds. Instead, it included only an annual report for 

the science center based in Russia and no information for the science 

center located in Ukraine. DOD officials stated that differences in the 

science centers’ auditing cycles and DOD’s accounting report deadlines 

precluded them from including such information in DOD’s 1998 report. 

However, we found that by September 1999, the Department of State 

could have provided DOD with 26 Defense Contract Audit Agency 

reports15—each describing an audit of a science center project using 

Cooperative Threat Reduction funds—almost 3 months before DOD 

submitted the report to Congress. DOD officials responsible for drafting 

the 1998 report informed us that they were unaware that these audit 

reports existed.

• The reports’ discussion of the Civilian Research and Development 

Foundation was limited to financial audits of the Foundation. These 

audits made no determination of whether the assistance provided had 

been used for the purposes intended. Moreover, DOD included the 

Foundation’s 1996 financial audit in its 1997 report and the Foundation’s 

1998 financial audit in its 1998 report. Neither report included the 

Foundation’s 1997 financial audit. 

The 1997 and 1998 reports did provide clear supporting evidence regarding 

the Department of Energy’s program to help protect, control, and account 

for former Soviet nuclear materials. Each report included Department of 

15 The Defense Contract Audit Agency prepared these 26 audit reports between November 

1998 and September 1999.
B-284030

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

Energy assertions that the assistance provided through this program had 

been used for the purposes intended and summaries of the Department’s 

supporting evidence. 

The Reports’ Audit Plans 

Were Outdated

Section 1206 requires DOD to report on future activities that will be 

undertaken to account for Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance. We 

therefore assessed whether DOD included such information in the reports.

We found that both reports included audit plans that were outdated at the 

time that DOD submitted the reports to Congress. In the 1997 report, which 

DOD submitted 5 months after 1998 ended, DOD stated that during 1998 it 

planned to carry out 20 audits and examinations. However, we found that 

during 1998 DOD had actually executed only 17 of the 20 originally planned 

audits and examinations.16 In the 1998 report, DOD indicated that it 

intended to perform 24 audits and examinations during 1999. However, we 

found that DOD had completed only 22 audits by December 13, 1999, when 

it submitted the 1998 report to Congress.17 DOD had canceled two audits 

scheduled for October 1999 and rescheduled them during the year 2000. 

DOD did not annotate either report to reflect these discrepancies.

The 1998 Report Did Not 

Include Information on 

Russia’s Tactical Nuclear 

Warhead Arsenal

Under the terms of section 1312 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2000, DOD is required to include information on Russia’s 

arsenal of tactical nuclear warheads in each accounting report submitted to 

Congress after fiscal year 1999, which ended on September 30, 1999. Since 

the 1998 report was submitted on December 13, 1999, we assessed whether 

it included the information required under section 1312.

We found that DOD did not provide the required information concerning 

Russia’s arsenal of tactical nuclear warheads. DOD officials explained to us 

that they did not include this information in the report because they had 

expected the 1998 report to be submitted to Congress before the end of 

fiscal year 1999. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD also noted 

16 DOD planned to perform 10 audits and examinations in Russia, 5 in Ukraine, 3 in 

Kazakhstan, and 2 in Belarus during 1998. In reality, DOD completed eight audits and 

examinations in Russia, four in Ukraine, three in Kazakhstan, and two in Belarus.

17 DOD planned to perform 10 audits and examinations in Russia, 6 in Ukraine, 5 in 

Kazakhstan, and 3 in Belarus. In reality, DOD completed eight audits and examinations in 

Russia, six in Ukraine, five in Kazakhstan, and three in Belarus.
B-284030

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

that it had interpreted section 1312 to apply to future accounting reports, 

starting with the fiscal year 2000 report (which is due to Congress on 

January 31, 2001).

Conclusions DOD failed to submit timely, complete, or accurate reports to Congress on 

assistance provided through the Cooperative Threat Reduction program for 

1997 and 1998. DOD’s failure to submit the reports on time denied Congress 

timely information regarding efforts to ensure that Cooperative Threat 

Reduction assistance was not being diverted or misused. As a result, 

Congress lacked the information contained in the 1997 report for 16 

months as it considered and enacted the Cooperative Threat Reduction 

program’s fiscal year 1999 budget and began considering the program’s 

fiscal year 2000 budget. Congress also lacked the information in the 1998 

report for over 10 months while it considered and enacted the program’s 

fiscal 2000 budget. While congressional action has provided DOD with an 

additional 3 months to prepare and review future reports, the extent of 

DOD’s recent delays indicates that DOD should take additional actions to 

address the timeliness of its Cooperative Threat Reduction accounting 

reports.

DOD also provided incomplete, and in some instances, inaccurate 

information on assistance provided through the Cooperative Threat 

Reduction program in its 1997 and 1998 accounting reports. These 

deficiencies erode the reports’ credibility and undermine their usefulness 

to Congress. The lack of sufficient information on assistance provided 

through other agencies, particularly through the Department of State, 

indicates that DOD has not taken the steps necessary to ensure that it 

obtains key information when needed from these agencies. Continued 

miscommunication between DOD and the Department of State could erode 

the value of future accounting reports, given DOD’s plans to obligate about 

$57 million through 2005 to projects at the science centers overseen by the 

Department of State.

Recommendations In order to ensure that Congress receives timely and accurate information 

on assistance provided to former Soviet states through the Cooperative 

Threat Reduction program, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense 

• establish procedures to facilitate the collection of information required 

in section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
B-284030

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

1996 so that this information is submitted to Congress by January 31 of 

each year, as specified in the legislation;

• establish quality controls and processes to improve the report’s 

information on the location, condition, and value of all assistance 

provided; and

• provide clear guidance to the Departments of State and Energy on the 

nature and timing of information that DOD requires of them for future 

accounting reports.

Agency Comments We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Departments of 

Defense, State, and Energy. DOD’s written comments and our evaluation of 

them are in appendix IV. The Department of State provided oral comments 

through the Political-Military Officer in the Office of Proliferation Threat 

Reduction. The Department of Energy did not provide comments.

DOD and the Department of State generally concurred with our report and 

its recommendations. For example, DOD agreed with our assessment of 

the reasons it was late in submitting its 1997 and 1998 Cooperative Threat 

Reduction accounting reports and noted that better procedures and 

controls must be developed to assure the timeliness of future reports. 

Moreover, with regard to tasking other agencies for input to the reports, 

DOD noted that it would formally notify these agencies of the information 

it required by letter. 

DOD also stated it believes that our report implies DOD does not have high 

confidence that Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance is being properly 

used and that this implication is unwarranted. DOD further noted that it 

uses a wide variety of other methods and sources to account for assistance 

provided. For example, DOD commented that it had recently provided 

information to Congress on the procedures it uses to account for 

contractor-provided services. Regarding DOD’s comment, our review did 

not assess the adequacy of DOD’s overall efforts to assure that the 

assistance was being used as intended. Rather, as we stated in our report, 

our objective was to determine the extent to which the 1997 and 1998 

accounting reports contained complete and timely information as specified 

in section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1996 and included sufficient evidence to support the reports’ conclusions. 

In this regard, we found that DOD’s reports omitted information in several 

key areas, such as services provided to former Soviet states. We continue to 

believe that the reports should have included information on all forms of 

Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance—including services—
B-284030

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

irrespective of whether this information was provided to Congress in other, 

unrelated reports.

Scope and 

Methodology

In assessing whether DOD complied with the two most recent reports’ 

(1997 and 1998) mandated submission date to Congress, we reviewed 

routing sheets and various draft versions of the reports. We also 

interviewed some DOD officials who were involved in the process of 

reviewing the reports. We were not able to interview certain key officials 

involved early in the process for developing the 1997 report because they 

have since left DOD.

In assessing the extent to which the reports provided the information 

called for by Congress, we reviewed the reports and the information 

sources used to compile them. In order to assess information originating 

from DOD, we interviewed Department officials who are currently 

responsible for accounting for Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance, 

those who maintain the equipment deliveries database, and project 

managers. We also interviewed Department of Defense inspectors who 

conduct audits and examinations. We did not travel to former Soviet states 

to observe inspectors conducting an audit and examination.

In order to assess information originating from the Department of Energy, 

we spoke to officials responsible for managing the Department’s system 

that ensures that its program to protect, control, and account for former 

Soviet nuclear materials is being executed effectively and that the 

assistance is being used for its intended purposes. We also spoke to 

officials responsible for managing the Department’s program to support 

peaceful research by former Soviet weapons scientists. In order to assess 

information originating from the Department of State, we spoke to officials 

responsible for managing U.S. involvement in the two international science 

and technology centers. We also interviewed auditors from the Defense 

Contract Audit Agency who are involved with program audits of the 

international science centers.

To determine the percentage of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds spent 

on equipment transferred to the custody of former Soviet states, we used 

figures on the value of equipment transferred and total Cooperative Threat 

Reduction disbursements provided by DOD. We did not attempt to verify 

the accuracy of this data.
B-284030

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

We conducted our review from July 1999 through January 2000 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are providing copies of this report to other interested committees; the 

Honorable William Cohen, Secretary of Defense; the Honorable Madeleine 

K. Albright, Secretary of State; the Honorable William Richardson, 

Secretary of Energy; and the Honorable Jacob Lew, Director, Office of 

Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to others 

upon request.

Please contact me at (202) 512-4128 if you or your staff have any questions 

concerning this report. Key contributors to this assignment were Boris 

Kachura, Pierre Toureille, and Valérie Leman Nowak.

Harold J. Johnson

Associate Director

International Relations and Trade Issues
B-284030

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

List of Congressional Committees 

The Honorable John Warner

Chairman

The Honorable Carl Levin

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Ted Stevens

Chairman

The Honorable Robert Byrd

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Floyd D. Spence

Chairman

The Honorable Ike Skelton

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young

Chairman

The Honorable David R. Obey

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction
Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

Appendix I

Equipment Transferred by the Department of Apendxies

Defense to Recipient States From October 1, 

1997, Through December 31, 1997 ApendxiI

Country Project Delivery location Items Value (in dollars)

Delivery date 

(1997)

Kazakhstan SS-18 missile silo 

elimination

Aqtua Parts $16,546 December 1

Strategic bomber 

elimination

Dolon Baler and parts 706,374 October 1

Crane and parts 239,549 October 1

Tool carrier and 

miscellaneous items

116,321 October 1

Excavator and parts 344,944 October 1

Tractor and trailer 92,846 October 1

Work benches 733 October 10

Ladder platforms 6,384 October 10

Cutting tools and parts 16,902 November 19

Nuclear testing 

infrastructure elimination

Semipalatinsk Miscellaneous items 7,402 October 1

Vehicle lubricants 6,194 October 24

Bioweapons production 

facility dismantlement

Stepnogorsk Safety equipment and 

spare parts

978,008 November 27

Russia Intercontinental ballistic 

missile launcher and 

intercontinental ballistic 

missile/submarine 

launched ballistic missile 

elimination equipment

Logistics support 

base, Moscow

Computers and 

miscellaneous parts

13,811 October 15

Parts 36,250 October 28

Parts 300 December 30

Surovatikha Loaders and parts 60,996 December 8

Heavy bomber 

elimination equipment

Logistics support 

base, Moscow

Parts 5,716 October 7

Liquid propellant fuel 

disposition system

Krasnoyarsk Epoxy material 6,972 October 4

Rocket fuel disposition 

system start-up kit

102,943 October 4

Spare parts 365,478 October 4

Rocket fuel disposition 

system 

8,573,506 October 13

Steam generator plant 1,040,667 October 13

Continued
Appendix I

Equipment Transferred by the Department of 

Defense to Recipient States From October 1, 

1997, Through December 31, 1997

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

Rocket fuel disposition 

system shelter

410,000 October 21

Rocket fuel disposition 

system shelter

410,000 October 21

Chemical weapons 

destruction

Logistics support 

base, Moscow

Spare parts 62,073 October 15

Fissile material storage 

facility design

Sarov Gamma-neutron 

passportization system 

56,847 December 12

Fissile material storage 

facility

Mayak Doors and parts 734,796 December 31

Fissile material 

containers

Mayak Fissile material containers 1,160,880 October 2

Fissile material containers 1,658,400 November 2

Fissile material containers 2,487,600 November 29

Nuclear weapons storage 

security–storage site 

enhancements

Sergiev Posad Breathalyzer equipment 463,326 November 14

Training supplies 500 November 14

St. Petersburg Polygraph and 

miscellaneous

58,950 November 14

Nuclear weapons 

transportation security– 

supercontainers

Sergiev Posad Supercontainers 1,962,590 October 7

Restraint chains 310,260 October 7

Supercontainer 

improvement kit

108,000 October 7

Restraint chains 310,260 October 8

Miscellaneous items 29,326 December 17

Nuclear weapons 

transportation security– 

emergency support 

equipment

St. Petersburg Video cassette recorders 19,650 October 1

Material control and 

accounting

Beloyarsk Nonhazardous fission 

counter system

22,000 November 28

Hazardous fission counter 

system

14,600 November 28

Moscow Portable gamma-ray 

spectroscopy system

1,510,099 October 7

Podolsk Uranium plutonium 

inspector system

125,065 November 17

Country Project Delivery location Items Value (in dollars)

Delivery date 

(1997)

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix I

Equipment Transferred by the Department of 

Defense to Recipient States From October 1, 

1997, Through December 31, 1997

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

a

DOD’s data indicates the unit cost of this equipment but does not indicate the quantity delivered. 

Therefore, this figure is the minimum value of the shipment based on the assumption that DOD sent 

one unit of each item listed.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD Cooperative Threat Reduction equipment deliveries database.

Ukraine SS-19 missile integrating 

contract

Kiev Computer equipment 24,783 October 31

Uman Commercial tires 199,567 October 12

Vehicles 79,660 October 22

Parts 752,505 November 12

Spare parts Unknown November 16

Logistics support 

base, Uman

Office supplies and spare 

parts

521,570 October 16

Fire truck winterization 39,278 November 27

Batteries 300 December 10

Miscellaneous vehicle 

lubricants and parts

172,765 December 25

Material control and 

accounting

Kharkiv Miscellaneous items 18,375 October 6

Electronic security 

equipment

229,807a December 5

Yuzhnoukrainsk Low resolution gamma-ray 

spectrometry system

53,365 November 15

Total $26,742,074

Country Project Delivery location Items Value (in dollars)

Delivery date 

(1997)

Continued from Previous Page
Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

Appendix II

Department of Defense Projects for Which No 

Information Was Given on the Condition of 

Assistance Provided ApendxiI

Accounting report Country Project

1997 Report Belarus Conversion of military technologies and capabilities into civilian activities

Continuous communications links

Defense conversion

Kazakhstan Government-to-government communications link

Emergency response

Defense conversion

Russia Intercontinental ballistic missile launcher elimination

Heavy bomber elimination

Liquid propellant transportation and storage

SS-18 missile elimination

Fissile material storage facility design

Fissile material containers

Emergency response

Security enhancements for railcar

Armored blankets

Ukraine SS-19 missile neutralization and dismantlement facility

SS-24 missile early deactivation

Emergency response support equipment

Emergency response

Housing conversion

1998 Report Belarus Liquid rocket propellant disposition

Continuous communications link

Emergency response

Defense conversion

Conversion of military technologies and capabilities into civilian activities

Kazakhstan Strategic bomber elimination

Export control

Defense conversion

Russia Intercontinental ballistic missile launcher elimination

Solid rocket motor elimination

SS-18 missile elimination

Intercontinental ballistic missile launcher elimination and intercontinental ballistic 

missile/submarine-launched ballistic missile elimination equipment

Liquid propellant oxidizer disposition systems

Fissile material storage facility

Continued
Appendix II

Department of Defense Projects for Which No 

Information Was Given on the Condition of 

Assistance Provided

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

Source: GAO analysis of DOD’s 1997 and 1998 accounting reports.

Supercontainers

Export control

Armored blankets

Housing conversion

Industry conversion 

Ukraine SS-19 missile liquid propellant disposition

SS-19 missile neutralization and dismantlement facility

SS-19 missile forces demobilization

SS-24 missile early deactivation

SS-24 missile silo launcher and missile elimination

Government-to-government communications link

Export control

Housing conversion

Industry conversion

Accounting report Country Project

Continued from Previous Page
Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

Appendix III

Department of Defense Projects for Which No 

Determination Was Made About the Usage of 

Assistance Provided for the Intended Purposes ApendxiI

Accounting report Country Project

1997 Report Belarus Conversion of military technologies and capabilities into civilian activities

Continuous communications links

Defense conversion

Kazakhstan Strategic bomber elimination

Government-to-government communications link

Defense conversion

Russia Intercontinental ballistic missile launcher elimination

Heavy bomber elimination

Liquid propellant disposition

Liquid propellant transportation and storage

Fissile material storage facility design

Fissile material containers

Emergency response

Armored blankets

Chemical weapons destruction facility

Chemical agent analytical monitoring

Ukraine SS-19 liquid propellant disposition 

SS-19 neutralization and dismantlement facility

SS-19 forces demobilization

SS-24 early deactivation

Emergency response support equipment

Emergency response

Housing conversion

1998 Report Belarus Liquid rocket propellant disposition

Continuous communications link

Emergency response

Defense conversion

Conversion of military technologies and capabilities into civilian activities

Kazakhstan Strategic bomber elimination

Russia Intercontinental ballistic missile launcher elimination

Solid rocket motor elimination

Intercontinental ballistic missile launcher elimination and intercontinental ballistic 

missile/submarine-launched ballistic missile elimination equipment

Liquid propellant oxidizer disposition systems

Fissile material storage facility

Continued
Appendix III

Department of Defense Projects for Which No 

Determination Was Made About the Usage of 

Assistance Provided for the Intended 

Purposes

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

Source: GAO analysis of DOD’s 1997 and 1998 accounting reports.

Supercontainers

Export control

Armored blankets

Chemical weapons destruction facility

Chemical agent analytical monitoring

Housing conversion

Industry conversion

Ukraine SS-19 missile liquid propellant disposition

SS-19 missile neutralization and dismantlement facility

SS-19 missile forces demobilization

SS-24 missile early deactivation

SS-24 missile silo launcher and missile elimination

Government-to-government communications link

Export control

Housing conversion

Industry conversion

Accounting report Country Project

Continued from Previous Page
Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of Defense ApendxiIV

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in the 

report text appear at the end 

of this appendix.

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

See comment 3.
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

See comment 4.

See comment 4.

See comment 6.

See comment 5.

Now on p. 13.
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

See comment 2.

Now on p. 13.
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

Now on p. 14.

Now on p. 14.

See comment 4.

See comment 4.
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

Now on p. 17.
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 

letter dated February 28, 2000.

GAO Comments 1. We have clarified this sentence in response to DOD’s suggestion.

2. We do not believe that DOD duly notified the Department of State of its 

informational needs. We reviewed the correspondence between the two 

Departments concerning the 1998 accounting report, which was 

comprised primarily of emails, and found that DOD had not provided 

the Department of State with clear guidance on its complete 

informational needs. For example, DOD did not request information 

from the Department of State on audits by the Defense Contract Audit 

Agency of individual science center projects that used Cooperative 

Threat Reduction funds. During the course of our review, we were able 

to obtain the information 2 months before DOD submitted the 1998 

accounting report.

3. Although the Department of State’s audit cycle is different from DOD’s, 

our review nonetheless found that the Department of State had relevant 

information on its auditing activities to date that it could have provided 

DOD before the 1998 report was due to Congress on January 31, 1999.

4. Future accounting reports will likely continue to be incomplete should 

DOD proceed with submitting the reports without relevant information 

from other agencies. Moreover, this approach will not guarantee the 

timeliness of future reports because it does not address the delays 

caused by DOD’s report review process. For example, DOD is currently 

taking this approach with the draft 1999 accounting report. However, 

DOD has not yet submitted the 1999 report, which was due to Congress 

on January 31, 2000. 

5. Concerning this section, we believe that DOD could have annotated the 

audit plans to reflect DOD’s most current knowledge. DOD knew that it 

would not complete the number of projected audits 5 months in 

advance of the 1997 report’s submission and at least 6 weeks in advance 

of the 1998 report’s submission to Congress. Our analysis of DOD’s 

report review process shows that DOD made several other changes to 

the reports during these time periods preceding the reports’ 

submissions.
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-00-40 Cooperative Threat Reduction

6. In appendix I of this report, we have included a list of the assistance 

that was omitted.

(711438) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit 

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at: 

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

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

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00