Detailed Information on the
National Nuclear Security Administration: Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Assessment

Monitoring the target population of displaced WMD experts to ensure complete and effective coverage of the issue/threat is maintained as the population evolves over time.

Measure: Cumulative percentage of non-USG (private sector and foreign government) project funding contributions obtained relative to cumulative USG GIPP funding contributions.

Explanation:

Measure: Cumulative number of the GIPP target population of displaced Russian and FSU WMD experts who are currently employed in GIPP grants or long-term private sector jobs resulting from GIPP grants (and cumulative number who are employed in long-term private sector jobs resulting from GIPP grants).

Explanation:By 2015, employ 17,000 in grants or long-term private sector jobs. By 2019, employ 11,000 in long-term private sector jobs. The GIPP target population of 17,000 is derived from the original NAS estimate of 60,000 less attrition and those experts engaged by other United States Government (USG) and international programs. The 11,000 is derived from the target population of 17,000, less those employed by recovering Russian/FSU economies.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: GIPP has a clear purpose -- to prevent WMD proliferation by redirecting displaced WMD experts in Russia, the former Soviet Union, Libya, Iraq, and other regions of proliferation concern, into sustained non-military employment by uniquely: (1) providing grants to WMD experts for applied research aimed at commercializing indigenous technologies in partnership with U.S. private firms; and (2) providing grants to create new businesses leading to the diversification of the civilian economies of Russian closed nuclear cities.

Evidence: NNSA Strategic Planning Guidance March 2005 (pp. 18 & 21); NA-24 Program Review for NNSA Administrator, Dec. 2004, (Slides 3, 4, 6); NNSA Strategic Plan, Nov 2004 (pp. 14-15, 36);RTI (GIPP) Program Plan, Sept. 2004 (pp. 4 & 6); NIS Strategic Plan, Jan. 2003 (pp. 20-23)

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: "Economic recovery across Russia and the FSU continues to be uneven. Many thousands of WMD scientists and personnel remain vulnerable, particularly in Russia's closed nuclear cities where thousands of WMD experts reside. Pres. Bush has stated, ""the redirection of former weapons scientists to productive civilian employment is a key priority." States and terrorist groups have attempted to acquire weapons-critical knowledge from the FSU. In an independent survey, 21% of Russian scientists said they would consider working for rogue states under certain conditions. The threat will grow dramatically when plutonium production reactors are closed in Seversk and Zheleznogorsk. Libya and Iraq pose new challenges in the volatile Middle East. GIPP addresses these risks by redirecting displaced WMD experts and personnel to non-military employment, and by reducing the number of experts with access to WMD materials. "

Evidence: NNSA Strategic Planning Guidance March 2005 (pp. 5;16-18; 21); NA-24 Program Review, 12/04, (Slides 3, 4, 6); NNSA Strategic Plan, Nov. 2004 (p. 15) RTI (GIPP) Program Plan, Sept. 2004 (pp. i; 5 & 15); Interview with Pres. Bush, Nature Magazine, Sept. 15, 2004; "Diversion of NBC Weapons Expertise from the FSU," RAND Corporation, June 2004; "Will Russian WMD Scientists Go Rogue?," Deborah Y. Ball, LLNL, and Theodore P. Gerber, Univ. of Wisconsin, Dec. 2003; Interview with C. Duelfer, Head, Iraq Survey Group, CNN Washington Bureau, May 26, 2004

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: GIPP is not redundant or duplicative of other USG efforts. State (through the multilateral ISTC) and AID (through the NGO CRDF) share GIPP objectives, but their focus is broader--including basic research and technical exchanges-- in order to engage at a wide range of institutes. GIPP emphasizes sustainable redirection by focusing on longer term commercial outcomes through (a) active and direct private sector involvement, (b) applied research and commercialization of indigenous FSU technology utilizing matching resources and participation from U.S. business partners, and (c) diversifying the economies of the closed nuclear cities. ISTC and CRDF are active in the 13 FSU Republics, while GIPP has a strong focus on Russia as the largest source of WMD expertise and the only country with closed nuclear cities. GIPP also involves two key partners: the DOE national labs, which provide close technical oversight, and U.S. companies, which commercialize project results. Coordination among programs is ensured through reciprocal proposal reviews and interagency meetings.

Evidence: Russian Transition Initiatives (GIPP) Strategic Assessment and Action Plan, Feb 2004 (p. 7); RTI (GIPP) Program Plan, Sept. 2004 (pp. 10-11;13-14); International Science and Technology Center (ISTC) Statute; Civilian Research and Development Foundation (CRDF) Program Guidance

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: GIPP is free of major design flaws and is accomplishing its stated goals. A major Strategic Review in 2004 involved broad interagency and nongovernmental stakeholder input, validated basic program functions and approaches, and recommended alterations in program implementation to improve overall effectiveness, such as new ways to streamline payment of invoices to foreign scientists. GIPP has made constructive changes to program design in line with earlier GAO reports, e.g., to enhance the efficiency of program efforts by requiring involvement of a U.S. industry partner on every applied research project to better ensure long-term commercial outcomes. GIPP's nuclear cities program element has operated under a government-to-government agreement with Russia that is currently being renegotiated. Arrangements have been made for these activities to continue, including through the multilateral International Science and Technology Center (ISTC) in Moscow, which has been applied effectively to the rest of the GIPP program.

Evidence: Russian Transition Initatives (GIPP) Strategic Assessment and Action Plan, Feb. 2004 (pp. 7-8, 13-16); GAO RCED-99-54, Feb. 19, 199F149; GAO-01-429, May 3, 2001; Agreement to Establish an International Science and Technology Center of Nov. 27, 1992; Defense Authorization Act 2001; NCI Annual Report to Congress, 2004

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: On the basis of annual program reviews by the NNSA Administrator and ongoing project reviews and prioritization by GIPP staff, resources are allocated to specific projects and to the national laboratories, contractors and foreign entities that carry out GIPP projects. Project proposals are fully vetted by the interagency, other DOE offices, an "interlaboratory" board and the non-profit industry association affiliated with the program, to ensure no overlaps and that the program's nonproliferation purpose is addressed. To ensure that resources reach intended beneficiaries, GIPP makes direct, tax-free payments to foreign scientists using the ISTC and CRDF payment mechanisms, and requires that foreign scientists receive no less than 70% of total project funding. Detailed statements of work for each project, performance targets, schedules, verification of deliverables, and independent, follow-up audits ensure that work conducted is aligned with the mission and goals of the program, as well as statutory requirements.

Evidence: NNSA Strategic Planning Guidance March 2005; IPP General Program Guidance March 2002; NCI Program Guidance; Defense Authorization Act, FY 2000 & 2002.; GAO RCED-99-54; GAO-01-429, May 3, 2001; RTI (GIPP) Program Plan, Sept, 2004 (pp. 4, 7-10); Agreement to Establish an International Science and Technology Center (ISTC) of Nov. 27, 1992; DOE Contract DE-AC01-O4NN40315 with the Civilian Research and Development Foundation (CRDF); DCAA Agreement on Audits

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: GIPP uses a limited number of specific long-term performance measures to meaningfully assess progress in achieving its program purpose. They are: 1) by 2015, employ GIPP's target population of approximately 17,000 displaced Russian and FSU WMD experts through GIPP grants and long-term private sector jobs; 2) by 2019, employ 11,000 Russian and FSU WMD experts in long-term, private sector jobs resulting from GIPP grants; 3) by 2019, obtain non-USG (private sector and foreign government) funding contributions equal to 100% of total GIPP funding; and 4) by 2011, employ GIPP's target population of approximately 1,500 displaced Libyan and Iraqi WMD experts in GIPP grants and long-term private sector jobs.

Evidence: FYNSP; NA-24 Strategic Plan, 2003 (pp. 20-25); NNSA Strategic Planning Guidance, March 2005 (pp. 17-22); JOULE; PPBE

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The program has ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures given the unprecedented challenge of U.S.-Russian cooperation in closed nuclear cities, the constraint on U.S. business involvement with individuals and institutions unfamiliar with market economics, the uncertain transformation of the Russian economy, and the inherently low success rate of forming small businesses even in the West. Nonetheless, GIPP's long-term measures are realistic and achievable within the timeframes we have established, based on past experience and the knowledge we have developed of how to navigate in this environment, as well as on the program's track record of meeting targets and timeframes to date.

Evidence: FYNSP; NA-24 Strategic Plan, 2003 (pp. 20-25); NNSA Strategic Planning Guidance, March 2005 (pp. 17-22); JOULE; NNSA PPBE Process

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Specific annual performance measures to demonstrate progress towards achieving long-term goals are well established. For FY07, they are: 1) employ 12,900 of the GIPP target population of approximately 17,000 displaced Russian and FSU WMD experts in GIPP grants and long-term private sector jobs; 2) employ 4,800 Russian and FSU WMD experts in long-term, private sector jobs resulting from GIPP grants; 3) obtain non-USG funding contributions equal to 75% of total GIPP funding; and 4) employ 200 of GIPP's target population of approximately 1,500 displaced Libyan and Iraqi WMD experts in GIPP grants and long-term private sector jobs.

Evidence: FYNSP; JOULE; NNSA PPBE Process; IPP Lotus Notes Database; NCI Management Information System; Annual Performance Report for 2004

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: GIPP maintains baseline assessments for its target population of WMD personnel in given regions, as well as a detailed set of ambitious annual milestones and targets documented in its Program Plan, project work plans, statements of work, and program execution plans to monitor progress toward achieving annual measures.

Evidence: FYNSP; NNSA PPBE Process; NNSA Annual Assessment; RTI (GIPP) Program Plan, Sept. 2004; Target Population Assessment; GIPP project contracting documents, including statements of work; NCI Management Information System; IPP Lotus Note Database; United States Industry Coalition Membership Survey.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: GIPP communicates annual and long-term performance goals to implementing partners through program execution plans and established Program Guidance. National laboratory and contractor partners are held accountable for meeting project milestones in support of these goals in quarterly reports, regular program and project reviews, laboratory performance reports, and performance appraisals. Commitment of participating U.S. companies is ensured through the CRADA mechanism and USIC membership requirements. Foreign scientist commitments are ensured through contracts and task orders, and verification of deliverables prior to payment. Commitment of participating FSU Governments is ensured through the ISTC and CRDF Agreements. Meetings with foreign government partners are also held on a regular basis to continually reinforce performance goals, track progress, and ensure compliance with long-term program goals.

Evidence: GIPP Program Execution Plan; IPP and NCI Program Guidance; NCI Management Information System; IPP Lotus Notes Database; DOE Guidance on Cooperative Research and Developments Agreements (CRADAs); individual CRADAs with U.S. companies; membership requirements of the U.S. Industry Coalition (USIC); Agreement to Establish an International Science and Technology Center (ISTC Agreement) of Nov. 27, 1992; DOE Contract Number DE-ACO1-04NN4O315 with the Civilian Research and Development Foundation (CRDF); DOE laboratory subcontracts with Russian and FSU institutes

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The constituent elements of GIPP (the former NCI and IPP) were independently evaluated by the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board (SEAB) in 2000, the NSC in 2001, and by the GAO in 1999 and 2001. Recommendations have been incorporated into GIPP program guidance and operations. The GAO is currently reviewing GIPP internal contracting and financial controls. The program was the subject of a comprehensive Strategic Review in 2004, which involved broad and independent interagency and stakeholder input. Three GAO reports with focus on other programs included assessments of GIPP effectiveness and relevance to USG efforts to: engage former Soviet bioweapons laboratories; shut down Russian plutonium production reactors; and maximize interagency coordination among programs to engage displaced WMD experts.

Evidence: GAO RCED-99-54, Feb. 19, 1999; GAO-01-429, May 3, 2001; NSC Review of 2002; SEAB Review (Baker-Cutler Report) of 2001; Russian Transition Initiatives (GIPP) Strategic Assessment and Action Plan, 2/04 (pp. 7-8)

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: NNSA budget requests are explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals via the comprehensive Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Evaluation (PPBE) process. Long-term performance goals are linked to annual targets and detailed technical milestones. Budget and resource trade-offs, assumptions, and decisions are clearly presented in the program's budget and are evaluated based on the impact to annual and long-term performance measures, and documented in the Program Decision Memorandum. Each unique program goal has its own B&R structure to track resource expenditures independently.

Evidence: NNSA PPBE Guidance Documents located on the NNSA website; Program Decision Memoranda (PDMs)

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: GIPP takes steps to strengthen its strategic planning on an ongoing, continual basis. These include review of and coordination with the development of annual strategic plans that correspond with the USG National Security Strategy and the NNSA Strategic Plan. The creation of GIPP itself - to expand from the FSU to other regions of proliferation concern, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere - was a significant strategic decision that stemmed from a Strategic Review conducted in 2004 at the direction of the NNSA Administrator. During annual and mid-year NNSA Management Council reviews, annual and long-term strategies for NA-24 subelements are evaluated against the evolving threat environment and adjustments are made accordingly.

Evidence: NA-24 Strategic Plan, 2003; NSC Review, 2002; Russian Transition Initiatives [GIPP] Strategic Assessment and Action Plan, Feb. 2004; RTI (GIPP) Program Plan, Sept. 2004.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: GIPP requires monthly and quarterly reporting against baseline program milestones and costing targets from national laboratories and other project implementors. This information is used to determine whether corrective action is necessary. Contractor performance is reviewed annually to correct project management deficiencies. DOE accounting data is reviewed monthly by Federal managers as a check on contractor reports. Information on Russian closed nuclear cities is provided to local IDC's funded by GIPP. Direct tax-free payments to FSU scientists are reported by the ISTC and CRDF. Mandatory laboratory trip reports detail progress of programs at FSU project sites.

Evidence: NCI and IPP Program Guidance; NCI Management Information System and IPP Lotus Notes Database; Laboratory program/project reviews and direction letters; Project performance documentation triggering payments to foreign WMD experts, according to established project work plans in DOE laboratory sub-contracts, DOE direct contracts, ISTC project agreements; STARS financial data system

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Cost, schedule and performance accountability is achieved through a number of vehicles. DOE laboratories are subject to regular program reviews and annual project reviews. Unsatisfactory performance results in actions such as deobligation of funds from the laboratories or cancellation of projects. Federal oversight of WMD expert grantees is carried out through regular financial and technical laboratory reviews, as well as through verification of deliverables before payments are made. Payments to foreign grantees and their institutes are subject to regular, independent financial audits. Federal managers are held accountable for meeting performance, cost and schedule targets through annual performance appraisals.

Evidence: Personnel Performance Appraisals; Lab Performance Reports; Annual Project Reviews; Laboratory program reviews; Laboratory invoices ; DOE task orders; CRDF schedules of approved equipment and eligible WMD experts; ISTC project agreements.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: GIPP funds are promptly obligated and identified for specific projects through work authorizations. Strict project selection and interagency review procedures, as well as rigorous implementation oversight and project milestones, ensure that project funds are used in accordance with program objectives. Project commitments and costing are tracked on a quarterly basis. To ensure funds are spent for the intended purpose, GIPP makes direct, tax-free payments to individual foreign WMD expert grantees and verifies satisfactory completion of deliverables prior to payment. Payments made to foreign grantees and equipment purchases are subject to regular, independent financial audits. The stringent contracting provisions and payment procedures are designed to provide maximum assurance of proper funds disbursement, but they do have the effect of slowing the rate of project costdown. Uncosted balances are nonetheless committted to binding contracts, which achieve the nonproliferation objective by engaging foreign WMD experts on USG-funded, multi-year project grants.

Evidence: Financial Plans; NNSA PPBE Process; Work Authorizations; Contractor Financial Reports; DOE contracrt DE-89-NN-76 with the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA).

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: "GIPP has measures to achieve efficiences and cost effectiveness. Competitive sourcing is achieved through the procurement departments of the ISTC and CRDF, which have extensive experience procuring equipment in local markets as well as Western style procurement regulations that draw upon the Federal Acquisition Regulations. GIPP uses sophisticated and comprehensive project management procedures to monitor and initiate corrective actions with partners. The NCI Managemet Information System and the IPP Lotus Notes Database include monthly, detailed financial reporting of contract commitments, costing and overheads. Efficiencies are achieved through shifting resources to the most efficient project implementors, substantially increasing the cost effectiveness of program execution. "

Evidence: NCI Management Information System and IPP Lotus Notes Databases; Annual Reports to Congress; ISTC Statute; CRDF Articles of Incorporation; ISTC and CRDF procurement and financial regulations; GIPP financial reports

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: GIPP closely coordinates with colleagues in the USG. State Department officials played a key role in the 2004 Strategic Review. GIPP shares contracting mechanisms and payment with the ISTC and CRDF and works closely with these organizations to implement its programs. GIPP seeks review and concurrence from State, Defense, and other agencies, as well as related programs within DOE, on projects prior to funding. GIPP meets regularly with foreign (e.g. British, Canadian, and European Union) and host (e.g. Russian, Kazakh, Ukranian) governments to approve/coordinate activities. These include bilateral discussions, as well as participation in international meetings, such as the bi-annual ISTC Governing Board meetings, that ensure effective contact and coordination.

Evidence: Project Review Guidance; IPP Program Planning Guidance; Interagency proposal reviews; IPP-ISTC Financial Memorandum of Understanding; DOE Contract DE-AC01-04NN40315 with the Civilian Research and Development Foundation; NA-24 Strategic Plan (pp. 20-25); RTI (GIPP) Strategic Assessment and Action Plan, Feb. 2004; RTI (GIPP) Program Plan, Sept. 20F7004 (pp. 2-3, 10-11)

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: GIPP adheres to DOE financial management policies, procedures and practices and meets all statutory requirements. NNSA accounting services are provided by DOE, and are free of material internal control weaknesses. GIPP program staff review accounting reports on a monthly basis to monitor obligations and costs for all projects and sites. The NNSA PPBE process requires the integration of financial and performance management information systems through all program implementation stages, from initial planning through program execution. GIPP grant payments to individual scientists use the well-established ISTC and CRDF systems, which are audited each year along with individual GIPP projects.

Evidence: DOE Financial Management Orders; NNSA PPBE Guidance Documents; audits by Price Waterhouse Coopers (for CRDF), Deloitte and Touche (for ISTC), Defense Contract Audit Agency (for IPP project sites with Russia and FSU).

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: In addition to fully addressing recommendations made in two GAO reports, the NNSA Administrator in 2004 commissioned a comprehensive Strategic Review of the two GIPP program elements (the former IPP and NCI), in order to enhance program strengths and identify operational improvements. A Program Plan was subsequently developed to implement Review recommendations, e.g., implementing a new program of independent audits at project sites and a new mechanism to streamline payments to participating FSU scientists. Program Execution Plans and program guidance are reviewed and updated annually. GIPP participates in NNSA-wide efforts, including professional training, to improve program management practices in areas such as leadership, diversity, contract administration and project management. As a result, GIPP has incorporated management improvements into its strategic planning process, including realignment of its management structure, program and project management practices, internal and external communications, staff development and succession planning.

Evidence: DOE Financial Management Orders; NNSA PPBE Guidance Documents; GAO RCED-99-54, Feb 19, 1999; GAO-01-429, May 3, 2001

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program met or exceeded its annual targets last year, and is on track to meet its long-term targets. Through FY04, 11,700 displaced Russian and FSU WMD experts were employed in GIPP grants and long-term private sector jobs, representing 68% of the progress toward the GIPP long-term target of 17,000; 3,500 displaced Russian and FSU WMD experts were employed in long-term private sector jobs, from a long-term target of 11,000 by 2019; and 60% in leveraged program funds from non-USG sources was achieved, consistent with plans and expectations to meet a long-term target of 100% by 2019. Note that in FY 05, the program performance measures and associated targets were revised to reflect GIPP's expanded global mission, as well as to more accurately measure desired outcomes.

Evidence: NCI Annual Report to Congress; FYNSP; IPP Annual Report; United States Industry Coalition Membership Survey

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: In addition to meeting or exceeding its annual targets last year, in FY05 GIPP is on track to meet all of its annual performance targets. Specifically, through the first half of FY05: 11,900 of the GIPP target population of approximately 17,000 displaced Russian and FSU WMD experts have been employed in grants and long-term private sector jobs, with an FY05 target of 12,100; 2) 3,700 long-term private sector jobs have resulted from GIPP grants, with an FY05 target of 4,000 ; and 3) 63% of non-USG project funding contributions has been achieved, well on route to meet an FY 05 target of 65%.

Evidence: NCI Annual Report to Congress; IPP Annual Report; PPBE; Joule ; FYNSP

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: GIPP has been able to achieve its goals along with increasing efficiencies. Program funding leveraged from non-USG sources increases each year, from 40% in 2002 to 63% through the first half of FY05. Project implementation costs were reduced by 15-20% over the past several years, as U.S. overhead for executing projects in Russia were reduced substantially. WMD experts employed in long term private sector jobs has increased from 1,800 in 2002 to 3,700 through the first half of FY05. Efficiencies will be further improved when the nuclear cities government-to-government agreement negotiations should be completed, although interim arrangements are in place.

Evidence: Financial Reports; NCI Management Information System; IPP Lotus Notes Database; NCI Annual Report to Congress; IPP Annual Report; PPBE; Joule ; FYNSP; individual CRADAs with U.S. industry partners

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The 2001 NSC review of nonproliferation programs in former Soviet states confirmed the utility of GIPP among comparable USG programs, calling for renewed focus on Russia's nuclear complex. Due to GIPP's approach of engaging foreign WMD experts to develop and commercialize new technology for civilian markets, GIPP maximizes the financial, organizational and resource contributions of U.S. companies in a unique public-private partnership. Additional program elements to support new civilian business in the nuclear cities further bolster the creation of permanent employment for former WMD experts.

Evidence: NSC review; NCI Annual Report to Congress; IPP FY 03 Annual Report; JOULE; NNSA PPBE Process

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The GAO reports of 1999 and 2000 identified program improverments, which have been incoroporated into program operations and incorporated by the Congress into authorizing legislation and committee reporting. Reviews by the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board and the NNSA Administrators RTI Strategic Review validated fundamental program approaches and functions. Subsequent GAO reports on related programs have cited the importance of GIPP efforts to engage former Soviet biological warfare laboratories and personnel, praised the interagency coordination by GIPP and other USG scientist redirection programs., and recommended that NNSA efforts to shut down Russian plutonium production reactors utilize GIPP expertise and resources.

Evidence: NSC Review of 2002; SEAB Review (Baker-Cutler report) of 2001; GAO RCED-99-54, Feb. 19, 1999; GAO-01-429, May 3, 2001; Russian Transition Initiatives (GIPP) Strategic Assessment and Action Plan, Feb. 2004 (pp. 7-8)