	Introduction

Congress established the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program inNovember 1991. Congressresponded by authorizing the use of $400 million in FY1992 Department of Defense funds to assistwith the safe and secure transportation, storage, and dismantlement of nuclear, chemical, and otherweapons. The CTR program seeks to reduce the threat to the United States from nuclear and other weapons in the former Soviet Union. Many began to viewCTR programs as part of a long-term threat reduction and nonproliferation effort. Congress has demonstrated continuing support for the CTR programs. The Conference Committee on the FY2000 DefenseAuthorization Bill approved the Administration's request for $475.5 million for CTR programs, butit also approved House position precluding funding for the construction of a chemical weaponsdestruction facility. Most of these funds have been allocated to DOE programs that aredesigned to enhance the safety and security of nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union, andtherefore, are not technically a part of the CTR program. Congress has expanded its oversight of expenditures on CTR projects over the years. The slow pace of implementation proved to be the key concern for Congress during the first few years of CTR efforts. Congress has also expressed concerns about the U.S. ability to account for funds spent on CTR projects. On the other side of the debate, some observers, both in Congress and outside government, have argued that the CTR programs could diminish U.S. national security by subsidizing the Russiandefense establishment. Although the debate over this issue has calmed in recent years, some Members of Congress remain concerned. (47)
The Clinton Administration contended that GAO's measure of material impact understated the effects of the CTR program because it does not measure the effect that U.S. assistance had indemonstrating the high priority the U.S. places on the safe and secure elimination of these weapons. The congressional debate over CTR funding in recent year has indicates that some in Congress disagree with the Clinton Administration and Bush Administration's priorities for CTR programs. Most Members of Congress continue to support U.S. assistance with the dismantlement and destructionof nuclear and other weapons in the former Soviet Union. Congress has also strongly opposed the use of CTR funds for housing construction and environmental restoration projects. When Congress first passed the Nunn-Lugar amendment in 1991, it mandated that the President certifyannually that each of the recipients is committed to:
making a substantial investment of its own resources for dismantling or destroying nuclear, chemical, and other weapons;
forgoing any military modernization that exceeds legitimate defense requirements or is designed to replace destroyed weapons of mass destruction;
forgoing the use of fissile materials and other components from destroyed nuclear weapons in new nuclear weapons;
facilitating U.S. verification of weapons destruction that uses U.S. money;
complying with all relevant arms control agreements; and
observing internationally recognized human rights, including the protection of minorities. (63) Some observers have,nonetheless, questioned the Administration'scertifications. During debate over the FY1997 and FY1998 Defense AuthorizationBills, many Members of the House supported proposals to link U.S. assistance under CTR programsto a number of Russian foreign and defense policies. Others have argued that such links would be ineffective. The issues raised in the past few years are likely to reappear in future debates over CTR funding.
Congress established the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program in 1991, authorizing the use of Defense Department funds to assist with the safe and secure transportation,storage, and dismantlement of nuclear, chemical and other weapons in the former Soviet Union. Initially, many supported U.S. assistance as an emergency response to fears about a loss of controlover nuclear weapons in the disintegrating Soviet Union. Now, many see the CTR program as a partof a more comprehensive threat reduction and nonproliferation effort.
Congress has demonstrated continuing support for the CTR programs, providing between $300 million and $400 million in Defense Department funds each year between FY1992 and FY1998; andbetween $403 and $475 million each year between FY 1999 and FY2004. Congress has alsoincreased its oversight efforts and added numerous reporting requirements. Many of these changesreflected congressional concern with the slow pace of implementation during the first few years andwith the U.S. ability to account for its expenditures and progress on CTR projects. The ClintonAdministration resolved most of the issues raised during the first few years of program, but thecongressional debate over funding in recent years has revealed new concerns about the focus of someprojects in the CTR program.
The Clinton Administration credited the CTR program with significant achievements in reducing threats from the former Soviet Union. Some Members of Congress disagree and believethat the CTR programs have diminished U.S. national security by subsidizing the Russian defenseestablishment. Others have argued that Clinton Administration claims of success are exaggeratedand that the programs have produced more limited results. On the other hand, some Members ofCongress believe that the program could do much more to protect the United States fromproliferation and terrorist threats. Congress added funds to the FY1997 budget to expand efforts toenhance the security of nuclear and other weapons materials in the former Soviet Union. But, inFY2000 and FY2001, it refused to authorize the use of CTR funds for the construction of a chemicalweapons dismantlement facility.
Members of Congress have also questioned the Administration's spending priorities for CTR programs. Most support efforts to dismantle nuclear weapons. However, Congress has prohibitedthe use of CTR funds for defense conversion projects, environmental restoration projects, andhousing for retired officers, and, beginning in FY2000, in prohibited their use for the elimination ofconventional weapons. Some Members of Congress have also argued that U.S. assistance to Russiashould be linked to a number of areas of Russian military and foreign policy. Others, however, haveargued that efforts to link CTR assistance to a wider range of Russian activities would backfire, withRussia forgoing the assistance and retaining its nuclear weapons while continuing the policies thatbrought U.S. objections. These issues were discussed at length during the House debate on FY1997funding, but they were not included in the final legislation. In recent years, Congress has approvedalmost all of the Administration's request for CTR funding, but it continues to express concernsabout the focus of some CTR projects.