Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 81
Strengthening Long-Term Nuclear Security: Protecting Weapon-Usable Material in Russia
H
U.S. Congressional Appropriations and Funding Projections for MPC&A Cooperative Program with the Russian Federation1
TABLE H.1 Congressional Funds Expended for DOE MPC&A Program, FY 1999 – FY 2003a
Year
Total MPC&A Expenditures (in millions of USD)
Total Naval Expenditures
MPC&A Total Expenditures Minus Naval Component
FY 1999
$132,813
$2,343
$130,470
FY 2000
$141,268
$28,763
$112,505
FY 2001
$111,407
$18,195
$93,212
FY 2002
$164,888
$40,507
$124,381
FY 2003
$172,288
$33,704
$138,584
aData provided to the committee by DOE, July 2004; substantial funds were also appropriated from 1994 through 1998.
Notes:
a. FY 2002 does not include amounts spent in the following programs, since they do not secure weapon-usable material:
Second Line of Defense: $ 12,041,000
Nuclear Assessment: $ 5,121,000
Total: $ 17,162,000
b. FY 2003 does not include amounts spent in the following programs since they do not secure weapon-usable material:
Radiological Dispersal Devices: $ 8,377,000
Second Line of Defense: $ 34,668,000
MegaPorts: $ 1,125,000
Nuclear Assessment: $ 4,297,000
Total: $ 48,467,000
1
The data in this Appendix have been presented as they were provided to the committee. The committee was not able to independently confirm the accuracy of the data, and therefore does not endorse it. However, the committee has provided it here as background information.
OCR for page 82
Strengthening Long-Term Nuclear Security: Protecting Weapon-Usable Material in Russia
TABLE H.2 Proportion of DOE Funds Expended in United States and the Former Soviet Union (FSU), FY 1999 – FY 2003a
Year
U.S./Other Country Costs
FSU Costs*
FY 1999
51%
49%
FY 2000
41%
59%
FY 2001
51%
49%
FY 2002
46%
54%
FY 2003
46%
55%
aData provided to the committee by DOE, July 2004.
* This figure includes equipment delivered to the FSU, whether purchased in the U.S. or Russia.
Note: This table does include the Second Line of Defense and Navy Programs.
TABLE H.3 Total Cost of MPC&A Equipment Purchased in Russia, FY 1999 – FY 2003a
Year
Cost of Russian Equipment*
FY 1999
$20,133
FY 2000
$74,708
FY 2001
$48,660
FY 2002
$81,813
FY 2003
$96,969
aData provided to the committee by DOE, July 2004.
* Figures provided in millions of U.S. dollars.
Note: This table does include the Second Line of Defense and Navy Programs.
OCR for page 83
Strengthening Long-Term Nuclear Security: Protecting Weapon-Usable Material in Russia
TABLE H.4 Congressional Funding for DOE MPC&A Program, FY 2005 and Projected Requests for FY 2006–2009a
FY 2005 Request*
FY2006*
FY2007*
FY2008*
FY2009*
114 million
126 million
124 million
122 million
89 million
aData provided to the committee by DOE, January 2005.
* These figures do not include Second Line of Defense, Radiological Threat Reduction or Navy/Strategic Rocket Forces Programs.
OCR for page 84
Strengthening Long-Term Nuclear Security: Protecting Weapon-Usable Material in Russia
This page intentionally left blank.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
russian federation