pressure to make the most of such opportunities, program managers tended to see such opportunities as unwelcome competition for existing programs. Until the FY02 budget submission, total USG spending on cooperative nonproliferation programs rose steadily, but not at a rate commensurate with either the threat or the opportunities to expand areas of cooperation. Interagency coordination: The lack of an agreed, integrated government-wide strategy for reducing proliferation threats – one that sets priorities and defines agency roles – has kept these programs from making even greater contributions to national security. Without a clear message about the goals and accomplishments of these programs, policymakers and the U.S. public remain largely ignorant of their impact. Even where policymakers are aware of these successes, they tend to see such efforts as "soft” foreign aid, and not part of a national security agenda. Without an overarching vision and a highlevel champion, it is impossible to make the response match the threat. The lack of coordination is seen more in missed opportunities or unmet threats rather than in programmatic duplication. Finally, at the implementation level, programmatic stovepipes among and within agencies limit the chance to create economies of scale and to transfer "lessons learned," thereby decreasing overall efficiency. Congressional oversight: The leadership of Congress is essential in establishing a strategic vision, allocating resources, and holding agencies accountable for results. Unfortunately, there were cases where committees prescribed not only what was to be done, but also spelled out to a very high degree of detail - how it was to be done. This led to multiple reporting requirements and tangled - sometimes conflicting - conditions on how the program was to be run. This type of Congressional oversight has hindered nonproliferation efforts almost as much as inadequate funding. During my tenure in the CTR Program, straightforward Administration budget requests would emerge from committee overgrown with kudzulike restrictions and reporting requirements. At one point, CTR was responsible for generating more than twenty reports to Congress in a single year, many of which governed the program's ability to access funds already appropriated. Even now, CTR Program implementers experience a year's delay between appropriation and availability of funds for obligation. These Congressionally required delays in spending then become arguments in subsequent years for reducing funding levels. Congressional disillusionment with certain sub-elements of a program's approach has resulted in a gradual erosion of authorities, thereby eliminating tools that had been key to some of the programs' successes. Increasing levels of specificity in allocations within programs rob agencies of the flexibility they need to respond to new threats and opportunities. Contradictory guidance can paralyze programs, as in a DOE program in which the appropriations bill simultaneously specified that 70% of the budget be spent in Russia while mandating new oversight requirements, which could only be undertaken by U.S. personnel, whose pay is 20 times more than their Russian counterparts. Normal competitive politics between House and Senate, authorizers and appropriators, and Foreign Relations and Armed Services can result in half-a-loaf compromises that complicate or disrupt program implementation. Coordination with recipients: International activities require the participation of the recipients. Several trends have converged to complicate relationships with recipient nations. Project areas have moved from very specific and measurable (e.g., remove all 1,400 strategic nuclear weapons from Kazakhstan) to diffuse (e.g., prevent Russian bioscientists from aiding proliferators). Projects with clear prior commitment (e.g., eliminate Russian nuclear weapons to achieve START I levels) have been joined by projects with only grudging acceptance (e.g., permanently dispose of 34 tons of weapons plutonium). Projects with built-in reciprocity (e.g., bilateral verification of START eliminations) have led to projects with unilateral inspection rights (e.g., U.S. monitoring of the Mayak Fissile Material Storage Facility). National attitudes towards the U.S. on the part of the recipients have swung from euphoric openness to annoyance to fatigue to suspicion Security officials have reasserted themselves both in the U.S. (after the Los Alamos spy imbroglio) and in Russia (after the election of an ex-KGB president). Ever-increasing U.S. demands for accountability and access to sensitive facilities reinforce suspicions of Russian security officials, and the cancellation of site visits slows down programs. Congressional limitations on U.S. support to Russia's top priorities (retiring officer housing, elimination of general purpose submarines, conversion of military cities and populations) make it harder to achieve U.S. priorities, which the Russians do not take as seriously (fissile material control and disposition, closure of biological weapons institutes). Efforts to condition nonproliferation cooperation on changing undesirable Russian behavior (e.g., Iranian nuclear cooperation) are ineffective, because many Russians would prefer that these programs, and the burden of U.S. cooperation, simply go away. Yet, terminating these programs would be devastating to our national security. Recommendations Today's heightened awareness of the threat posed by nuclear, biological and chemical weapons makes consideration of the organization and coordination of our nonproliferation programs essential and timely. At the same time, re-organizing these programs, no matter how wisely, will not by itself make a significant improvement in program effectiveness. Several commissions, including the Baker-Cutler Commission, the Deutch Commission, and the Hart-Rudman Commission all recommended the creation of a high-level White House position dedicated solely to nonproliferation programs. Administration responses to such directives have typically been limited to renaming existing officials or committees, leaving the status quo essentially unchanged. Without senior-level commitment within the White House to improving and maintaining a high-quality interagency coordination process, the actions of Congress will not have the In light of the recommendations of these prestigious panels, I am not about to win an award for original thinking. I recommend the creation of a Deputy National Security Advisor, committed explicitly and exclusively to reducing the threats we face from weapons of mass destruction. High-level attention to nonproliferation programs within the White House is the single most effective step we can take to make our programs match the growing threat of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Better interagency coordination, improved funding, more flexibility will follow from this appointment, and won't happen without it. This new Deputy National Security Advisor must have, and must be seen to have, the personal confidence of both the National Security Advisor and the President. He or she would convene regular and substantive "principals meetings" to ensure all agencies are acting cooperatively toward a common purpose. He or she would develop a unified presentation of agency budgets for nonproliferation programs to allow both the President and Congress to see clearly what is being done and to understand the justification for each operating entity's role and function. Such a high-level official assigned to this issue would be able to command more attention to these issues in recipient countries. This new Deputy National Security Advisor would speak for the President and National Security Advisor to all relevant Congressional committees and panels. He or she would be the ultimate authority and bear the highest responsibility for the state of our nonproliferation efforts. This would ensure consistency and authority in statements of Administration positions and broader coordination and vision across program areas. Congress should also explore how it might more effectively exercise its oversight of these important responsibilities. A unified budget presentation, a more effective and transparent coordination of Executive branch functions, a high-level White House authority who can speak for all programs, should win greater confidence from both houses and both parties, and encourage the Congress to authorize and appropriate monies in larger packages allowing much greater programming authority and flexibility. Ten years ago, a group of bipartisan Senators convinced their colleagues to allocate $400 million to help secure the nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union. This expenditure was not embraced by everyone. Some argued that the prospect of these weapons falling into the wrong hands was far off and remote. The threat today is neither far off nor remote. It can be seen by the untrained eye; and so combating it is no longer a matter of vision; it is a matter of common sense and self-defense. Our nonproliferation programs today need to be clearly defined, well coordinated, better funded, and led at the highest levels. In whatever manner Congress and the Executive decide to organize our programs — and there are many effective ways to do so - they must have high-level Presidential attention. Any organizational structure with high-level attention will be better than the best Testimony of Leonard S. Spector Center for Nonproliferation Studies Thank you for this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on improving the effectiveness of U.S. nonproliferation programs in the successor states of the former Soviet Union. I am currently Deputy Director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, based at the Center's Washington, D.C., office. The Center is the nation's largest organization for research and training on the subject of nonproliferation. Prior to joining the Center, I served during the second Clinton Administration as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy for Arms Control and Nonproliferation. It is a particular honor for me to appear here today because, earlier in my career, I served as Chief Counsel of this Subcommittee, and I am familiar with its many important contributions to curbing the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). My remarks today are based on my own scholarship and experience, as well as upon those of a number of colleagues at the Monterey Institute Center for Nonproliferation Studies who have worked for many years on these questions, including the Center's director, Dr. William Potter. The Subcommittee has requested that I begin my remarks with a review of U.S. nonproliferation programs in the New Independent States (NIS) and that I highlight the challenges that they are currently encountering. To help the Subcommittee understand these issues I have prepared a table consolidating this information with respect to the major U.S. programs in this field. (Attachment 1.) In the interest of time, however, I will speak today only about the most significant issues that must be addressed to reduce the threats posed by the Soviet WMD legacy. I. Importance for U.S. Counter-Terrorism Policy The fundamental goal of the majority of these programs – in particular, those programs aimed at eliminating or securing fissile material and at employing Soviet WMD scientists - is to prevent terrorist organizations or states of proliferation concern from obtaining WMD materials or expertise. As such, these programs are an integral and highly important component of U.S. counter-terrorism efforts. Osama bin Laden, is known to be seeking weapons of mass destruction, and, of course, recently claimed to possess chemical and nuclear weapons. (Most observers disbelieve the latter claim.) Bin Laden is also known to have extensive links, through the al Qaeda network, in the former Soviet Union. It is worth recalling the scale of the Soviet WMD legacy. The Department of Energy estimates that Russia possesses 603 tons of weapons-usable fissile materials (plutonium |