After the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia inherited the world’s largest arsenal of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. As Russia adopted economic reforms and moved toward an open society, its economy and central controls deteriorated, thereby making it difficult to maintain security at its weapons sites. Recognizing these difficulties, the Congress began authorizing funds in 1992 for programs to help destroy Russian weapons and improve WMD security. More recently, the events of September 11, 2001, have increased U.S. concerns that terrorists might obtain WMD materials or weapons at poorly secured sites. While DOD and DOE implement most of the U.S. threat reduction and nonproliferation programs, the Departments of State, Commerce, and Homeland Security implement related programs. The Congress established DOD’s CTR program in 1992 to reduce the WMD threat posed to the United States from weapons remaining in the FSU. The program was designed to assist the FSU in securing and destroying WMD and its means of delivery. Initial CTR assistance was provided to Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Russia, which had inherited the majority of the Soviet Union’s WMD. The program helped Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus remove nuclear weapons from their soil, eliminating the potential emergence of three additional nuclear states. CTR also facilitated Russia’s efforts to reduce its massive nuclear weapons arsenal and address its arms control commitments. In fiscal year 2004, CTR had 22 projects (see app. I). One of the newest CTR projects—the WMD Proliferation Prevention Initiative—is designed to strengthen the ability of non-Russian FSU states to deter, detect, and interdict illicit trafficking of WMD and related materials. For example, DOD is providing equipment and training to Uzbekistan to enhance its ability to monitor its borders for illegal transport of radioactive material. Additionally, the CTR program has expanded outside of the FSU, as DOD will use CTR funds to help Albania eliminate its chemical weapons stockpile. Furthermore, a bill introduced in the Senate in November 2004 would grant DOD additional flexibility to expand the CTR program outside the FSU. DOD implements the CTR program through the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which receives policy guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. In 1993, DOE began implementing programs funded by DOD, to help secure weapons-usable nuclear materials in the FSU. DOE also received funding in 1994 from State to employ former Soviet weapons scientists and engineers in cooperative research projects with U.S. laboratories and industry to deter their employment by rogue states. In 1996, with the growth of these programs, funding shifted directly to DOE. These programs remained focused on the FSU and were spread throughout DOE. In October 1999, DOE’s nonproliferation programs were consolidated within the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Since that time, NNSA’s nonproliferation mission has been implemented by the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN), which seeks to detect, prevent, and reverse WMD proliferation. This mission has now expanded to address proliferation threats in more than 70 countries to prevent the spread of WMD. For example, DNN is initiating a new program to provide employment opportunities to Iraqi scientists, technicians, and engineers. In fiscal year 2004, DOE had 19 projects addressing nonproliferation threats worldwide (see app. I). The threat reduction and nonproliferation programs have evolved from a $400 million DOD program in 1992 to approximately $1.8 billion in programs at DOD and DOE in 2004. The State Department also manages its own nonproliferation programs and coordinates U.S. assistance to the FSU. In 1992, the Freedom Support Act established the Office of the Coordinator within the State Department to coordinate U.S. assistance to the FSU. The coordinator’s responsibilities include resolving program and policy disputes among U.S. government agencies regarding their programs in the FSU. In 1994, State and DOD established the International Science and Technology Center in Moscow to fund peaceful research carried out by otherwise underpaid weapons scientists. The center supplements the income of scientists, purchases equipment for scientific research, and supports programs to help scientists identify and develop commercially viable research projects. In 1996, the Congress established State’s Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs Account to fund programs addressing the spread of WMD. For example, the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund supports projects to prevent the proliferation of WMD, their delivery systems, and related materials. NSC staff coordinates U.S. policy for threat reduction and nonproliferation programs and conducted reviews of these programs that validated the need to maintain them in 2001 and 2002. The Proliferation Strategy Policy Coordinating Committee, chaired by the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation and Homeland Defense, sets general policy for U.S. nonproliferation programs. NSC staff establishes guidelines but does not implement programs or control their budgets. DOD and DOE prepare their own individual strategies to implement their respective threat reduction and nonproliferation programs, but there is no governmentwide strategy that integrates them with one another or with those of other agencies that implement threat reduction and nonproliferation programs. We found that DOD and DOE strategies to address security issues for their authorized agency missions generally meet selected criteria for strategic planning established by GPRA. Recognizing the importance of coordinating U.S. efforts, using resources effectively, and enhancing agencies’ abilities to anticipate growing nonproliferation concerns, the Congress, GAO, and others have required or recommended integrated planning among DOD, DOE, and other agencies’ threat reduction and nonproliferation programs. NSC staff and State created plans in response to the above requirements and recommendations, but these plans either focus solely on one agency or on one geographic location. Furthermore, these programs are expanding beyond the FSU and may potentially involve the response of multiple U.S. agencies. DOD and DOE each have strategic plans governing their respective threat reduction and nonproliferation programs. We found that each agency’s strategic plan generally meets the selected GPRA criteria for strategic planning. See table 1 for a listing of the selected GPRA criteria. Additionally, we found that DOD and DOE have their own methods to prioritize their respective activities and programs. Furthermore, DOD and DOE threat reduction and nonproliferation programs undergo periodic internal and external reviews to improve program management. The CTR Policy Office, in conjunction with DTRA, produces and updates a strategy for the CTR program. We found that this strategy generally contains the elements of a strategic plan developed using GPRA criteria. Additionally, all CTR projects develop detailed plans that also contain these elements. Figure 1 depicts DOD offices that are involved in strategic planning for the CTR programs. In accordance with GPRA, the CTR program’s mission statement is comprehensive and concise: that is, to prevent the proliferation of WMD and related materials, technologies, and expertise from FSU states— including providing for the safe destruction of Soviet-era WMD, associated delivery systems, and related infrastructure. The CTR program’s strategy also includes the following specific goals: (1) dismantle FSU WMD and associated infrastructure, (2) consolidate and secure FSU WMD and related technology and materials, (3) increase transparency and encourage higher standards of conduct, and (4) support defense and military cooperation with the objective of preventing proliferation. These goals provide clear direction to the activities and desired outcomes of the CTR program. The CTR strategy also cites external factors that could affect the program, describes how performance will be measured, and states budget requirements. For example, the level of Russian cooperation is cited as an external factor that will affect the successful implementation of the program. The strategy provides metrics by which performance of the program can be measured, such as the number of missiles destroyed. DOD and DOE performance metrics are shown in appendix II. In accordance with GPRA criteria, the CTR plans include cost estimates and cover a period of 5 years. For example, the overall CTR funding request for fiscal year 2005 is $409 million, and the 5-year plan calls for an additional $1.5 billion between fiscal years 2006 and 2009. The CTR program has five program areas, with several projects under each program area. Each project has a plan that details its broad mission, specific objectives, external factors that could affect the achievement of these objectives, metrics that are used to evaluate the performance of the project, and cost estimates. For example, the mission of the Automated Inventory Control and Management System project, under the nuclear weapons safety and security program area, is to enhance Russia’s capability to account for and track the strategic and tactical nuclear weapons scheduled for dismantlement. Specific objectives include installing hardware and software at 18 sites within Russia and providing initial training and data entry. External factors cited for this program include whether Russia will grant sufficient access to the sites and improve the equipment storage conditions. The project uses milestone dates, which range from the procurement of the software to the final certification of the system at all sites, as one method to measure its performance. The project is estimated to cost $50.2 million. Additionally, according to agency officials, DOD has not had to prioritize CTR projects on the basis of available funds. The CTR program generally receives the funding requested for its projects. DOD develops its budget request for the CTR program on the basis of funding needed to continue existing programs and implement new programs. As a result, projects have not competed for funding. Furthermore, the CTR program has undergone internal performance reviews in order to improve management practices. In 2003, the CTR Policy Office conducted a 6-month, project-by-project review of the program that changed the scope of several CTR projects to ensure that program activities met threat reduction goals.