a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

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

GAO-04-521
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. 

Highlights of GAO-04-521, a 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 

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. 

The Department of State requested 

$415 million to fund programs in 

the Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, 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. 

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. 
Page i GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

Program Activities Reflect Legislative Authorizations, but One 

Program’s Activities Appear to Go Beyond Expectations for the 

Scope of Its Mission 7

Program Management Relies Less on Contracted Experts Than 

Project Implementation Does 14

Conclusions 16

Recommendation 17

Matters for Congressional Consideration 17

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 17

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 20

Appendix II: Nonproliferation Programs Funded through the Department 

of State’s NADR Account 21

Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund 21

Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance Program 24

Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection Program 28

Additional Nonproliferation Programs Funded through the NADR 

Account 35

Appendix III: Anti-terrorism Programs Funded through the Department of 

State’s NADR Account 36

Anti-terrorism Assistance Program 36

Terrorist Interdiction Program 42

Additional Anti-terrorism Activities Funded through the NADR 

Account 45

Appendix IV: Regional Stability and Humanitarian Assistance Programs 

Funded through the Department of State’s NADR Account 46

Humanitarian Demining Program 46

Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction Program 50

Additional Regional Stability and Humanitarian Assistance Program 

Funded through the NADR Account 53

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State 54

Tables Table 1: Appropriations for the Major NADR Programs, Fiscal Years 

1999 through 2005 6
Contents

Page ii GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Table 2: Other Activities Funded through the NADR Account, 

Fiscal Years 1999 through 2005 7

Table 3: Funding for the Tracker Export Control System, Fiscal 

Years 1999 through 2005 12

Table 4: Full-time Federal Employees and Contract Personnel in 

Program Management for the Major NADR Programs, 

Fiscal Year 2004 15

Table 5: Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund 22

Table 6: Funding from the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund 

by Type of Activity, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003 23

Table 7: The Export Control and Related Border Security 

Assistance Program 24

Table 8: Funding from the Export Control and Related Border 

Security Assistance Program, by Country, Fiscal Years 2000 

through 2003 26

Table 9: Funding from the Export Control and Related Border 

Security Assistance Program, by Type of Activity, Fiscal 

Years 2000 through 2003 27

Table 10: Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection Program 29

Table 11: Funding for the International Science Centers, Fiscal Years 

1999 through 2003 33

Table 12: Funding of Bio-Chem Redirection Projects by 

Implementing Agency, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003 34

Table 13: Anti-terrorism Assistance Program 37

Table 14: Distribution of Anti-terrorism Assistance Program Funding 

by Country/Region, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003 38

Table 15: Distribution of Anti-terrorism Assistance Program 

Funding, by Activity, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003 42

Table 16: Terrorist Interdiction Program 43

Table 17: Terrorist Interdiction Program Funding Estimates, by 

Country, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003 44

Table 18: Humanitarian Demining Program 47

Table 19: Funding by the Humanitarian Demining Program, by 

Country/Region and Type of Activity, Fiscal Years 1999 

through 2003 49

Table 20: Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction Program 51

Table 21: Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction Program Funding, 

by Country, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2003 52
Contents

Page iii GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Abbreviations

NADR Nonproliferaton, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related 

Programs Account

NDF Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund

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. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

April 30, 2004 Letr

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.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 

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. 
Page 2 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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 
Page 3 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance Program.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 

2

The Department of Commerce has participated in project implementation for this program.
Page 4 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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 antiterrorism efforts and to give the executive branch more flexibility in 

administering funds for these kinds of activities.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:

3

H. Rept. 105-401 accompanying the Foreign Appropriations Export Financing and Related 

Programs Appropriations Bill for 1997, Pub. L. 105-118. 
Page 5 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

• 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.
Page 6 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Table 1: Appropriations for the Major NADR Programs, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2005

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. 

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.

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

NADR program 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 (request)

Nonproliferation and Disarmament 

Fund $15 $15 $15 $14 $14.9 $30 $34.5

Export Control and Related Border 

Security Assistance 9a 14.5 19.1 41.7a 36 36 38

Science Centers and Bio-Chem 

Redirectionb 28.9 78 51 82a 52 50.5 50.5

Anti-terrorism Assistance 41a 31 38 157.9a 90.6a 97 128.3

Terrorist Interdiction Program N/A 1.3 4 18a 5 5 5

Humanitarian Demining Program 35 40 39.9 43a 49a 50 59.9

Small Arms/Light Weapons 

Destruction Program N/A N/A 2 3 3 3 9

Total $128.9 $179.8 $169 $359.6 $250.5 $271.5 $325.2
Page 7 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Table 2: Other Activities Funded through the NADR Account, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2005 

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.

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 

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year appropriations

Programa 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 (request)

International Atomic Energy Agency 

Voluntary Contribution $40 $43 $50.5 $50 $52.9 $53 $53

International Monitoring System (for the 

Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty) 28.9 13.7 17.6 16.6 14 19 19

Korean Peninsula Energy Development 

Organization 53.1 55.3 74.9 90.5 5 N/A N/A

Organization for the Prohibition of 

Chemical Weapons Voluntary 

Contribution N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A N/A

Lockerbie Trial Support N/A N/A 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Counterterrorism Engagement with 

Allies N/A N/A N/A 3 N/A N/A 0.5

Israel Counterterrorism Assistance N/A N/A N/A 28 N/A N/A N/A

International Trust Fund N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 10 10

Counterterrorism Financing N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7.5

Total $122 $112 $158 $190.1 $81.9 $82 $90
Page 8 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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, 
Page 9 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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.4

Between 1996 and 2000, the House Appropriations Committee included 

similar language in committee reports on foreign operations and related 

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.
Page 10 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

appropriations.5 This congressional appropriations committee report 

language, however, is not legally binding6 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.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. 

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.
Page 11 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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.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. 

8

We did not explore, as part of this review, whether similar situations had arisen in the past.
Page 12 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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

Source: Department of State and Congressional Budget Justifications for fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

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, 

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Nonproliferation and 

Disarmament Fund 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

2004

(request)

2005 

(request)

Funding for Tracker 

export control system $3.2 $4.7 $4.5 $4.5 $4.8 $8.75 $7

Total program 

appropriation $15 $15 $15 $14 $15 $35 $34.5

Funding for Tracker 

system as percentage 

of total program 

appropriation 21 31 30 32 32 25 20
Page 13 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

unanticipated nonproliferation activities of immediate concern to the 

United States.”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.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. 

9

H. Rept. 104-600, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 

Appropriations Bill, 1997, May 29, 1996.

10Prior 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. 
Page 14 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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 Fulltime 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. 
Page 15 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Table 4: Full-time Federal Employees and Contract Personnel in Program 

Management for the Major NADR Programs, Fiscal Year 2004

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. 

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.

Program management personnel

NADR program

Total 

program 

management 

staff

Full-time 

federal 

employees

Contract 

employees 

in program 

staff

Percentage of 

full-time 

employees of 

total staff

Nonproliferation and 

Disarmament Fund 13 7 6 54

Export Control and 

Related Border Security 

Assistance 14 12 2 86

Science Centers and BioChem Redirection 24 16 8 67

Anti-terrorism Assistance 22 20 2 91

Terrorist Interdiction 

Program 1 1 0 100

Humanitarian Demining 

Program and Small 

Arms/Light Weapons 

Destruction Program 26 19 7 73

Average per program 16.7 12.5 4.2 78.5 
Page 16 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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.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 

11The Humanitarian Demining Program also uses grants with nongovernmental and 

international organizations. 
Page 17 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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.
Page 18 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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.”
Page 19 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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 

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,

Joseph A. Christoff, Director

International Affairs and Trade
Page 20 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

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.
Page 21 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Appendix II

Nonproliferation Programs Funded through 

the Department of State’s NADR Account ApendxiI

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.
Appendix II

Nonproliferation Programs Funded through 

the Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 22 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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
Appendix II

Nonproliferation Programs Funded through 

the Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 23 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Source: Department of State program officials and legislation.

Table 6: Funding from the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund by Type of 

Activity, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003

Source: Department of State Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund.

Note: Percentage total does not add to 100 due to rounding.

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.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Type of 

activity 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total

Percentage 

of total

Administrative $0.67 $0.68 $0.68 $0.63 $0.75 $3.41 4.7

Destruction/ 

Conversion 4.00 3.05 2.30 8.79 0 18.14 25.1

Education/ 

Training 0.80 0 0 0.58 0 1.38 1.9

Enforcement/ 

Interdiction 6.73 0.73 4.80 0 0 12.26 17.0

Safeguards/ 

Verification 0 3.11 3.00 5.31 3.91 15.33 21.2

Tracker 3.16 4.72 4.50 4.50 4.80 21.68 30.0

Total $15.36 $12.29 $15.28 $19.81 $9.46 $72.20 99.9
Appendix II

Nonproliferation Programs Funded through 

the Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 24 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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

Program authorization and activities

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.
Appendix II

Nonproliferation Programs Funded through 

the Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 25 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Source: Department of State program officials and legislation.

a

Includes supplemental appropriations.

Annual appropriations (in 

millions of dollars) for fiscal 

years 1999 through 2004 and 

the fiscal year 2005 request

Fiscal years

1999 - $9a

2000 - $14.53

2001 - $19.1

2002 - $41.7a

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. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Program authorization and activities
Appendix II

Nonproliferation Programs Funded through 

the Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 26 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Table 8: Funding from the Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance 

Program, by Country, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total

Percentage 

of total

Afghanistan $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $0.077 $0.077 0.08

Albania 0.020 0 0 0.180 0.200 0.22

Armenia 0 0.495 0.600 0.460 1.555 1.71

Azerbaijan 0.145 2.613 0.500 2.519 5.777 6.34

Bosnia and 

Herzegovina 0 0 0 0.377 0.377 0.41

Bulgaria 0.520 0.350 0.410 0.314 1.594 1.75

Croatia 0 0 0.040 0.440 0.480 0.53

Cyprus 0.310 0.290 0.055 0.364 1.019 1.12

Czech 

Republic 0.813 0.317 0.200 0.309 1.639 1.80

Egypt 0 0 0.050 0 0.050 0.05

Estonia 0.270 0.539 0.101 0.566 1.476 1.62

Hungary 0.430 0.368 0.120 0.120 1.038 1.14

India 0.285 0.874 0.800 0.125 2.084 2.29

Jordan 0 0 0.720 0.183 0.903 0.99

Kazakhstan 1.119 2.665 0.655 2.308 6.747 7.40

Kyrgyzstan 0 2.000 0 2.114 4.114 4.51

Latvia 0.420 0.474 1.141 1.450 3.485 3.82

Lithuania 0.953 0.560 0.781 1.005 3.299 3.62

Macedonia 0.320 0.495 0.100 0.534 1.449 1.59

Malaysia 0 0.092 0.150 0 0.242 0.27

Malta 0.377 5.300 0.119 0.576 6.372 6.99

Moldova 0.050 0 0 0.515 0.565 0.62

Oman 0 0 0.020 0 0.020 0.02

Pakistan 0 0 0.100 0.183 0.283 0.31

Panama 0 0 0 0.042 0.042 0.05

Poland 0.640 0.917 0.316 0.894 2.767 3.04

Regional 0.810 1.456 1.205 0.406 3.877 4.25

Romania 0.330 0.636 0.245 0.824 2.035 2.23

Russia 0.800 1.000 1.385 1.902 5.087 5.58

Saudi Arabia 0 0 0.030 0.060 0.090 0.10
Appendix II

Nonproliferation Programs Funded through 

the Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 27 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Source: Department of State Office of Export Control Cooperation.

Note: Percentage total does not add to 100 due to rounding.

Table 9: Funding from the Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance 

Program, by Type of Activity, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003

Serbia and 

Montenegro 0 0 0 0.423 0.423 0.46

Slovakia 0.200 0.380 0.682 0.645 1.907 2.09

Slovenia 0.125 0.405 0.350 0.793 1.673 1.84

Taiwan 0 0.027 0 0.060 0.087 0.10

Tajikistan 0.050 7.500 0 0.350 7.900 8.67

Thailand 0 0.028 0.070 0.033 0.131 0.14

Turkey 0 1.299 1.000 0.583 2.882 3.16

Turkmenistan 0.190 5.000 0 0.389 5.579 6.12

Ukraine 0.962 0.731 0.800 1.530 4.023 4.41

United Arab 

Emirates 0 0.283 0.350 0.200 0.833 0.91

Uzbekistan 0 4.330 0.300 2.154 6.784 7.44

Vietnam 0 0 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.07

Yemen 0 0.137 0 0 0.137 0.15

Total $10.139 $41.561 $13.415 $26.047 $91.162 100.01

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Type of 

activity 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total

Percentage 

of total

Administrative/

Support costs $0.80 $10.63 $5.43 $1.87 $18.73 20.55

Advisors 2.64 5.31 3.53 5.49 16.97 18.62

Enforcement 

techniques and 

capabilities 2.67 22.81 0.88 14.23 40.59 44.53

Government 

outreach 0.65 1.00 0.80 0.50 2.95 3.24

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total

Percentage 

of total
Appendix II

Nonproliferation Programs Funded through 

the Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 28 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Source: Department of State Office of Export Control Cooperation.

Note: Percentage total does not add to 100 due to rounding.

Science Centers and 

Bio-Chem Redirection 

Program

The Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection Program1 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 

Legal/ 

regulatory 

frameworks 0.41 0.17 0.17 0.40 1.15 1.26

Licensing 

procedures 

and practices 2.97 1.63 2.61 3.56 10.77 11.81

Total funding $10.14 $41.55 $13.42 $26.05 $91.16 100.01

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Type of 

activity 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total

Percentage 

of total

1

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.
Appendix II

Nonproliferation Programs Funded through 

the Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 29 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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.
Appendix II

Nonproliferation Programs Funded through 

the Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 30 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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.

(Continued From Previous Page)
Appendix II

Nonproliferation Programs Funded through 

the Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 31 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Annual appropriations (in 

millions of dollars) for fiscal 

years 1999 through 2004 and 

the fiscal year 2005 request

Fiscal years

Science Centerse

1999 - $22

2000 - $59

2001 - $35

2002 - $37

2003 - $32

2004 - $50.5a

2005 request - $50.5a,b

Bio-Chem Redirection

1999 - $6.88

2000 - $19

2001 - $16

2002 - $15

2003 - $20c

BioIndustry Initiative

1999 - N/A

2000 - N/A

2001 - N/A

2002 - $30d

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.

(Continued From Previous Page)
Appendix II

Nonproliferation Programs Funded through 

the Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 32 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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.

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 selfsustainability. 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.

(Continued From Previous Page)
Appendix II

Nonproliferation Programs Funded through 

the Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 33 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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.

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

Source: Department of State Office of Proliferation Threat Reduction.

As noted above, the Bio-Chem Redirection effort funds projects through 

other U.S. federal agencies. Table 12 provides the funding history for biochem redirection projects for fiscal years 1999 through 2003 by the agency 

that implemented the projects.

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Type of 

activity 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total

Percentage 

of total

International 

Science and 

Technology 

Center 

(Moscow) $18 $39 $26 $25.5 $20.5 $129 77.2

Science and 

Technology 

Center (Kiev) 3 16 6 6.5 6.5 38 22.8

Total $21 $55 $32 $32 $27 $167 100
Appendix II

Nonproliferation Programs Funded through 

the Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 34 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Table 12: Funding of Bio-Chem Redirection Projects by Implementing Agency, 

Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003

Source: Department of State Office of Proliferation Threat Reduction.

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.

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Implementing 

agency 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total

Percentage 

of total

Department of 

Health and 

Human Services $4.9 $11 $10 $9 $9 $43.9 58.6

Department of 

Agriculture 2 7 6 5 6 26 34.7

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency 0 1 0 1 2 4 5.3

Department of 

Energy/Oak 

Ridge National 

Laboratory 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.3

International 

Science and 

Technology 

Center 

(Moscow) 0 0 0 0 0.8 0.8 1.1

Total $6.9 $19 $16 $15 $18 $74.9 100
Appendix II

Nonproliferation Programs Funded through 

the Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 35 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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.
Page 36 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Appendix III

Anti-terrorism Programs Funded through the 

Department of State’s NADR Account ApendxiI

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 Antiterrorism 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 antiterrorism 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.
Appendix III

Anti-terrorism Programs Funded through the 

Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 37 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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 antiterrorism 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 - $41a

2000 - $31

2001 - $38

2002 - $157.4b

2003 - $90.6c 

2004 - $97

2005 request - $128.3
Appendix III

Anti-terrorism Programs Funded through the 

Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 38 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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.

Table 14: Distribution of Anti-terrorism Assistance Program Funding by Country/Region, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003

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 antiterrorism 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.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Program authorization and activities

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Country/ Region 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Total

(totals may not 

add exactly due 

to rounding)

Percentage of 

total 

Abu Dhabi $0.237 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.237 0.11

Africa region 0 0 0 0 0.259 0.259 0.12

Albania 0 0.587 1.359 0.196 0.126 2.268 1.04

Algeria 0 0.149 0.618 0.749 0.707 2.223 1.02

Argentina 0.059 0 0 0.011 0 0.070 0.03

Armenia 0 0 0 2.056 1.031 3.087 1.42

Australia 0.027 0 0 0 0 0.027 0.01

Azerbaijan 0 0 1.880 0.861 1.323 4.064 1.87

Bahrain 0 0 0 0.203 0.465 0.668 0.31

Bangladesh 0 0.138 1.018 1.424 1.563 4.143 1.90
Appendix III

Anti-terrorism Programs Funded through the 

Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 39 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Bosnia-Herzegovina 0.054 0.249 0.171 0.127 0.790 1.391 0.64

Botswana 0 0 0.011 0.310 0 0.321 0.15

Brazil 0.036 0 0.494 0 0 0.530 0.24

Brunei 0.008 0 0.131 0 0 0.139 0.06

Central America region 0 0.025 0 0.218 0 0.243 0.11

Chile 0 0 0 0.011 0 0.011 0.01

Colombia 0.427 1.642 1.108 3.396 31.258 37.831 17.38

Costa Rica 0.042 0 0 0 0 0.042 0.02

Croatia 0 0 0.250 0.271 0 0.521 0.24

Cyprus 0 1.018 0.418 0.646 0.473 2.555 1.17

Czech Republic 0.673 0.971 0.210 0.007 0 1.861 0.85

Djibouti 0 0 0 0.038 3.221 3.259 1.50

Dominican Republic 0 0 0 0 0.112 0.112 0.05

Dubai 0.090 0 0 0 0 0.090 0.04

East Asia Pacific region 0 0 0 0.341 0.010 0.351 0.16

Ecuador 0 0.008 1.500 1.626 0 3.134 1.44

Egypt 0.806 1.430 0.461 1.503 2.213 6.413 2.95

El Salvador 0 0 0.122 0 0 0.122 0.06

Ethiopia 0 0 0 0.245 0.252 0.497 0.23

Europe region 0 0 0 0.379 0.313 0.692 0.32

Fiji 0 0.040 0 0.104 0 0.144 0.07

Georgia 0 0 0.989 1.685 1.657 4.331 1.99

Greece 0.147 0.015 0.337 3.791 3.790 8.080 3.71

Guatemala 0 0 0 0 0.015 0.015 0.01

Hungary 0 0 0 0 0.275 0.275 0.13

India 0 0.461 0.655 1.852 2.007 4.975 2.29

Indonesia 0 0.043 1.261 0.866 9.595 11.765 5.40

Israel 0.422 0.054 0.342 0.788 1.023 2.629 1.21

Italy 0 0 0 0.389 0.464 0.853 0.39

Ivory Coast 0.133 1.254 0 0 0 1.387 0.64

Japan 0 0.109 0 0 0 0.109 0.05

Jordan 0.715 0.679 0.405 1.512 1.334 4.645 2.13

Kazakhstan 0 0 1.371 2.484 0.490 4.345 2.00

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Country/ Region 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Total

(totals may not 

add exactly due 

to rounding)

Percentage of 

total 
Appendix III

Anti-terrorism Programs Funded through the 

Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 40 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Kenya 0.139 0.808 0.046 0.279 11.012 12.284 5.64

Kuwait 0.428 0.436 0.955 0.337 0.083 2.239 1.03

Kyrgyzstan 0 0 0.958 2.634 1.371 4.963 2.28

Macedonia 0 0.831 0.753 0.060 0.598 2.242 1.03

Madagascar 0 0.201 0.362 0 0 0.563 0.26

Malaysia 0.124 0.109 0.096 1.365 1.078 2.772 1.27

Mali 0 0 0 0 0.417 0.417 0.19

Malta 0 0 0 0.010 0.100 0.110 0.05

Mauritania 0 0 0.866 0 0.041 0.907 0.42

Mauritius 0 0 0 0 0.156 0.156 0.07

Mexico 0 0.001 0 0.074 0.172 0.247 0.11

Middle East region 0 0.108 0 0.232 0 0.340 0.16

Moldova 0 0 0.093 0 0 0.093 0.04

Morocco 0.117 0.291 0 1.609 3.242 5.259 2.42

Nepal 0 0 0.312 0.949 1.097 2.358 1.08

Norway 0 0 0 0.019 0 0.019 0.01

Oman 0.212 1.556 0.514 1.769 0.549 4.600 2.11

Pakistan 0 0 0.380 0.829 9.030 10.239 4.70

Panama 0 0 0 0.021 0 0.021 0.01

Paraguay 0.080 0.421 0.715 0.015 0.174 1.405 0.65

Peru 0.015 0.020 0.154 0 0 0.189 0.09

Philippines 0.004 1.550 0.584 2.494 1.693 6.325 2.91

Poland 0.002 0.553 0 0.007 0 0.562 0.26

Qatar 0.135 0 0.472 0.159 0 0.766 0.35

Russia 0 0 0 0.120 0 0.120 0.06

Saudi Arabia 0.055 0 0 0.759 0 0.814 0.37

Senegal 0.054 0.517 0.827 0 0 1.398 0.64

Sharjah 0 0.038 0 0 0 0.038 0.02

Singapore 0 0 0 0 0.055 0.055 0.03

South Africa 0.035 1.559 1.579 0.849 0.679 4.701 2.16

Spain 0 0 0 0.038 0.588 0.626 0.29

Sri Lanka 0.061 0.303 0.315 1.188 0.353 2.220 1.02

Tajikistan 0 0 0 0.029 2.950 2.979 1.37

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Country/ Region 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Total

(totals may not 

add exactly due 

to rounding)

Percentage of 

total 
Appendix III

Anti-terrorism Programs Funded through the 

Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 41 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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.

Tanzania 0.141 0.088 0.444 0.433 0.206 1.312 0.60

Thailand 0.733 0.681 1.018 0.244 1.654 4.330 1.99

Trinidad/

Tobago

0 0 0.531 0 0 0.531 0.24

Tunisia 0 0 0 0.022 1.569 1.591 0.73

Turkey 0 0.562 1.236 1.619 1.779 5.196 2.39

Turkmenistan 0 0 0 0.022 0 0.022 0.01

Uganda 0.472 0.337 0.338 0 0 1.147 0.53

Ukraine 0 0.013 0 0 0 0.013 0.01

United Arab Emirates 0 0.894 0.564 0.044 0.451 1.953 0.90

United Kingdom 0.055 0 0 0 0 0.055 0.03

Uzbekistan 0.120 0.790 1.247 1.864 1.890 5.911 2.72

Yemen 0.178 0.925 0.742 0.825 0.127 2.797 1.28

Multiregion 

conferencesa

0.069 0.010 0 0 0 0.079 0.04

Total $7.105 $22.473 $31.212b $49.007 $107.881 $217.678b 100.4c

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Country/ Region 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Total

(totals may not 

add exactly due 

to rounding)

Percentage of 

total 
Appendix III

Anti-terrorism Programs Funded through the 

Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 42 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Table 15: Distribution of Anti-terrorism Assistance Program Funding, by Activity, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data.

a

Fiscal year totals may not equal total of table 14 due to rounding.

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. 

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Type of activity 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total

Percentage of 

total

Conferences, seminars, 

and workshops on antiterrorism $0.069 $0.338 $0.627 $2.147 $1.737 $4.918 2.3

Country assessments and 

consultations 0.118 0.353 0.387 1.301 1.526 3.685 1.7

Equipment transfer or 

related training 0 .084 0 .074 0.530 0.688 0.3

Investigation procedures 

training 0.636 1.105 3.559 3.399 5.015 13.714 6.3

Counterterrorism 

management training 3.286 9.777 13.191 18.411 76.004 120.669 55.4

Physical, national, or VIP 

security 2.996 8.139 12.770 19.110 19.712 62.727 28.8

Weapons of mass 

destruction related training 0 2.677 0.679 4.565 3.357 11.278 5.2

Total $7.105 $22.473 $31.213a $49.007 $107.881 $217.679a 100.0
Appendix III

Anti-terrorism Programs Funded through the 

Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 43 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Table 16: Terrorist Interdiction Program

Source: Department of State program officials and legislation.

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. 
Appendix III

Anti-terrorism Programs Funded through the 

Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 44 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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

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.

Dollars in millions

Country Funding

Percentage of total 

program funding

Afghanistan $0.53 5.5

Cambodiaa 0.2 2.1

Ethiopiaa 0.7 7.3

Ghanaa 0.2 2.1

Kenyaa 0.9 9.3

Pakistan 1.9 19.7

Tanzania 0.7 7.3

Yemen 2.5 26.0

Multicountry demonstration 

and management 

consultations in 2002 

(Algeria, BosniaHerzegovina, 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) 2.0 20.8

Total $9.63 100.1b
Appendix III

Anti-terrorism Programs Funded through the 

Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 45 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Additional Antiterrorism 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 Antiterrorism 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.
Page 46 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Appendix IV

Regional Stability and Humanitarian 

Assistance Programs Funded through the 

Department of State’s NADR Account ApendxiIV

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 postconflict 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.
Appendix IV

Regional Stability and Humanitarian 

Assistance Programs Funded through the 

Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 47 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Table 18: Humanitarian Demining Program

Program authorization and activities

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 deminingrelated 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 - $43a

2003 - $49b

2004 - $50

2005 request - $59
Appendix IV

Regional Stability and Humanitarian 

Assistance Programs Funded through the 

Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 48 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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.

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. 

(Continued From Previous Page)
Appendix IV

Regional Stability and Humanitarian 

Assistance Programs Funded through the 

Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 49 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Table 19: Funding by the Humanitarian Demining Program, by Country/Region and Type of Activity, Fiscal Years 1999 through 

2003

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Country/Region

Type of 

project 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total

Percentage of 

total

Afghanistan C, M, T 2.62 3.0 3.0 4.0 9.0 21.62 9.91

Albania/Macedonia M 0.34 0 0.12 0 0 0.46 0.21

Angola C, M, S 0.2 3.1 2.84 3.85 3.6 13.59 6.25

Angola/Mozambique T 0 0 0.54 0 0.05 0.59 0.27

Armenia C 0 0.3 0.85 1.2 0.25 2.60 1.20

Azerbaijan C, M 0 0.72 1.19 1.38 1.60 4.89 2.25

Bosnia-Herezgovina C, S 2.31 0 0 1.3 0 3.61 1.66

Cambodia C, M 1.5 2.58 2.48 2.29 2.77 11.62 5.35

Chad C 0.73 0.62 0.3 0.35 0.5 2.50 1.15

Colombia M 0 0 0.1 0.15 0 0.25 0.12

Croatia C 0.6 0 0 0 0 0.6 0.28

Djibouti C 0 0.75 0.4 0.4 0.35 1.90 0.87

Ecuador C 1.0 1.0 0.96 0.36 0 3.32 1.53

Eritrea C, M, S 0 1.0 1.17 1.72 2.48 6.37 2.93

Estonia C 0.34 0.3 0 0.2 0.24 1.08 0.50

Ethiopia C, M, S 0 0.68 0.15 2.18 0.45 3.46 1.59

Georgia C 0 0.03 1.0 1.1 1.05 3.18 1.46

Guinea-Bissau C 0 0.10 0.49 0 0.23 0.82 0.38

Horn of Africa T 0 0 0 0.38 0 0.38 0.17

Iraq C, M, T 0 0 0 0 3.2 3.2 1.47

Jordan C 1.9 1.51 0.95 0.85 0.89 6.10 2.81

Kosovo C, M, S 0.5 0.69 0 0 0 1.19 0.55

Laos C 1.8 1.49 0.99 1.33 1.18 6.79 3.12

Lebanon C, M 0.53 1.37 1.16 1.2 1.48 5.74 2.64

Mauritania C 0.53 0.46 0.4 0 0 1.39 0.64

Mozambique C 1.9 3.84 2.18 2.11 2.63 12.66 5.82

Namibia C, M 1.05 0.49 0.08 0.13 0.6 2.35 1.08

Nicaragua M 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.2 0.09

Nigeria C 0 0 0 1.45 0 1.45 0.67

North Caucasus M 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.05

OAS (Honduras, Costa Rica, 

Guatemala, & Nicaragua)

C

2.24 1.9 1.35 1.92 1.51 8.92 4.10
Appendix IV

Regional Stability and Humanitarian 

Assistance Programs Funded through the 

Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 50 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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.

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, manportable 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. 

Oman C 0 1.02 0.27 0.50 0 1.79 0.82

Peru C 1.0 1.0 0.86 0 0 2.86 1.32

Rwanda C 0.75 0.29 0.4 0.35 0.38 2.17 1.00

Somalia C, M 1.25 1.4 1.4 1.2 0.45 5.7 2.62

Sri Lanka C, M 0 0 0 0 2.55 2.55 1.17

Sudan C 0 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.41

Thailand C, T 1.05 1.22 1.27 0.87 0 4.41 2.03

Vietnam C, M 1.10 1.0 1.65 1.68 2.55 7.98 3.67

Yemen C 1.46 1.24 1.02 0.75 0.75 5.22 2.40

Zambia C 0 0.01 0.7 0.82 0.45 1.98 0.91

Zimbabwe C 0.74 1.15 0.60 0 0 2.49 1.15

Multiple countries Cross cutting, 

miscellaneous 

surveys, 

research & 

administrative 7.04 10.65 13.63 8.19 6.89 46.40 21.35

Total $34.48 $45.11 $44.60 $44.21 $48.98 $217.38 100.01a

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Country/Region

Type of 

project 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total

Percentage of 

total
Appendix IV

Regional Stability and Humanitarian 

Assistance Programs Funded through the 

Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 51 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

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
Appendix IV

Regional Stability and Humanitarian 

Assistance Programs Funded through the 

Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 52 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Source: Department of State program officials and legislation.

Table 21: Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction Program Funding, by Country, 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 2003

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. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Country 2001 2002 2003 Total

Percentage of 

total

Albania $0.625 $0.45 $0.35 $1.425 17.8

Angola 0 0.069 0.5 0.569 7.1

Bulgaria 0.964 0.98 0.4 2.344 29.3

El Salvador 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.6

Guinea 0 0.103 0.05 0.153 1.9

Lesotho 0.015 0 0 0.015 0.2
Appendix IV

Regional Stability and Humanitarian 

Assistance Programs Funded through the 

Department of State’s NADR Account

Page 53 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Source: Department of state Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement.

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. 

Liberia 0 0 0.2 0.2 2.5

Mozambique 0 0.149 0 0.149 1.9

Philippines 0 0.095 0.155 0.25 3.1

Romania 0 1.062 0.307 1.369 17.1

Senegal 0 0.092 0 0.092 1.2

Serbia and 

Monetenegro 0.396 0 0.988 1.384 17.3

Total $2.0 $3.0 $3.0 $8.0 100

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Country 2001 2002 2003 Total

Percentage of 

total
Page 54 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account

Appendix V

Comments from the Department of State ApendxiV
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of State

Page 55 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of State

Page 56 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of State

(320216) Page 57 GAO-04-521 Department of State NADR Account
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and 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 fulltext 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
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00