{ "id": "97-1027", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "97-1027", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 100620, "date": "2003-11-17", "retrieved": "2016-04-08T14:33:55.818544", "title": "Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs: Issues for Congress", "summary": "Congress established the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program in 1991,\nauthorizing the use of Defense Department funds to assist with the safe and secure transportation,\nstorage, and dismantlement of nuclear, chemical and other weapons in the former Soviet Union. \nInitially, many supported U.S. assistance as an emergency response to fears about a loss of control\nover nuclear weapons in the disintegrating Soviet Union. Now, many see the CTR program as a part\nof a more comprehensive threat reduction and nonproliferation effort.\n Congress has demonstrated continuing support for the CTR programs, providing between $300\nmillion and $400 million in Defense Department funds each year between FY1992 and FY1998; and\nbetween $403 and $475 million each year between FY 1999 and FY2004. Congress has also\nincreased its oversight efforts and added numerous reporting requirements. Many of these changes\nreflected congressional concern with the slow pace of implementation during the first few years and\nwith the U.S. ability to account for its expenditures and progress on CTR projects. The Clinton\nAdministration resolved most of the issues raised during the first few years of program, but the\ncongressional debate over funding in recent years has revealed new concerns about the focus of some\nprojects in the CTR program.\n The Clinton Administration credited the CTR program with significant achievements in\nreducing threats from the former Soviet Union. Some Members of Congress disagree and believe\nthat the CTR programs have diminished U.S. national security by subsidizing the Russian defense\nestablishment. Others have argued that Clinton Administration claims of success are exaggerated\nand that the programs have produced more limited results. On the other hand, some Members of\nCongress believe that the program could do much more to protect the United States from\nproliferation and terrorist threats. Congress added funds to the FY1997 budget to expand efforts to\nenhance the security of nuclear and other weapons materials in the former Soviet Union. But, in\nFY2000 and FY2001, it refused to authorize the use of CTR funds for the construction of a chemical\nweapons dismantlement facility.\n Members of Congress have also questioned the Administration's spending priorities for CTR\nprograms. Most support efforts to dismantle nuclear weapons. However, Congress has prohibited\nthe use of CTR funds for defense conversion projects, environmental restoration projects, and\nhousing for retired officers, and, beginning in FY2000, in prohibited their use for the elimination of\nconventional weapons. Some Members of Congress have also argued that U.S. assistance to Russia\nshould be linked to a number of areas of Russian military and foreign policy. Others, however, have\nargued that efforts to link CTR assistance to a wider range of Russian activities would backfire, with\nRussia forgoing the assistance and retaining its nuclear weapons while continuing the policies that\nbrought U.S. objections. These issues were discussed at length during the House debate on FY1997\nfunding, but they were not included in the final legislation. In recent years, Congress has approved\nalmost all of the Administration's request for CTR funding, but it continues to express concerns\nabout the focus of some CTR projects.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/97-1027", "sha1": "b227bfa88d841d0b3472e200f8cc7a4d4c9f89fb", "filename": "files/20031117_97-1027_b227bfa88d841d0b3472e200f8cc7a4d4c9f89fb.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/97-1027", "sha1": "279810c5ba4eb1e0b97554d4feca6fc2a3d294bd", "filename": "files/20031117_97-1027_279810c5ba4eb1e0b97554d4feca6fc2a3d294bd.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc806651/", "id": "97-1027_2002Mar06", "date": "2002-03-06", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs: Issues for Congress", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20020306_97-1027_fa2d7457e3664d23812686fd6ccb1b8cd7531e81.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20020306_97-1027_fa2d7457e3664d23812686fd6ccb1b8cd7531e81.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc805829/", "id": "97-1027_2001Mar23", "date": "2001-03-23", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs: Issues for Congress", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20010323_97-1027_8e773396de064149c5f2e26d59e1e8ea9674946f.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20010323_97-1027_8e773396de064149c5f2e26d59e1e8ea9674946f.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Foreign Affairs", "Intelligence and National Security", "National Defense" ] }