Section 1206 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2006: A Fact Sheet on
Department of Defense Authority to Train and
Equip Foreign Military Forces
Nina M. Serafino
Specialist in International Security Affairs
September 28, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22855
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006

Summary
Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2006 provides
the Secretary of Defense with authority to train and equip foreign military and foreign maritime
security forces. The Department of Defense (DOD) values this authority as an important tool to
train and equip military partners. Funds may be obligated only with the concurrence of the
Secretary of State. Thus far, the Department of Defense (DOD) has used Section 1206 authority
primarily to provide counterterrorism support. This authority expires in FY2011.
As of September 28, 2009, Section 1206 obligations total just over $1 billion for FY2006 through
FY2009. Section 1206 obligations totaled some $106 million in FY2006, $277 million in
FY2007, and $289 million in FY2008. As of September 28, 2009, FY2009 obligations totaled
$340.6 million.
For FY2010, DOD first requested a $400 million appropriation for Section 1206 programs, but
then appears to have revised its actual request to $345 million. In the respective versions of the
FY2010 NDAA (H.R. 2647, reported June 18, and S. 1390, reported July 2, respectively), neither
the House nor the Senate armed services committee appeared inclined to raise the authorized limit
from its current $350 million level. (Across-the-board mandated cuts reduce the actual amount
available for FY2010 from the authorized $350 million to about $346 million, according to
DOD.)
As reported by the House Appropriations Committee (July 16, 2009, H.Rept. 111-230) and passed
by the House (July 22, 2009), the House version of the DOD appropriations act (H.R. 3326)
would appropriate $195 million for Section 1206 funding. The Senate Appropriations Committee
version (reported September 10, 2009, S.Rept. 111-74) would appropriate $345 million.
In related legislation, as passed by the House on June 10, Section 841 of the FY2010-FY2011
Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R. 2410) would create a new “Security Assistance
Contingency Fund” for the State Department with purposes that would overlap with Section
1206.
Congressional Research Service

---

Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006

Contents
Origins and Evolution of Section 1206 Authority ........................................................................ 1
Congressional Action in 2005................................................................................................ 2
Congressional Action and Concerns: 2006-2008.................................................................... 4
Funding Provisions, Annual Obligations, and Conditions ............................................................ 6
Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 6
Joint DOD-State Department Approval Process ........................................................................... 7
Congressional Action 2009.......................................................................................................... 7
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (H.R. 2647 and S. 1390) ................ 7
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 (H.R. 2410) ...................... 8
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 3326)............................................... 8

Tables
Table 1. Section 1206 Funding: FY2006-FY2009 Obligations ..................................................... 9

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 14

Congressional Research Service

---

Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006

ection 1206 of the FY2006 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA ), P.L. 109-163, as
amended, provides the Secretary of Defense with a new authority to train and equip foreign
S military forces and foreign maritime security forces. Section 1206 is the first major
Department of Defense (DOD) authority to be used expressly for the purpose of training the
national military forces of foreign countries. Generally, DOD has trained and equipped foreign
military forces through State Department programs. The George W. Bush Administration
requested this “Global Train and Equip” authority because DOD viewed the planning and
implementation processes under which similar State Department security assistance is provided
as too slow and cumbersome.1
Section 1206 provides the Secretary of Defense with authority to train and equip foreign military
forces for two purposes. One is to enable foreign military forces, as well as foreign maritime
security forces, to perform counterterrorism (CT) operations. Nearly all Section 1206 assistance
to date has been CT training and equipment (T&E). Most T&E has been provided by contractors,
according to DOD officials. The other purpose is to enable foreign military forces to participate in
or to support military and stability operations in which U.S. armed forces are participating. (DOD
does not use Section 1206 authority for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, according to
DOD officials.)
In its May 2009 budget submission for DOD, the Obama Administration requested a $400 million
appropriation for Section 1206 spending. This is $50 million above the authorized spending limit
of $350 million. According to the DOD FY2010 Budget Request Summary Justification
Document accompanying the request, U.S. military “Combatant Commanders consider this
[Section 1206] program ... as the single most important tool for the Department to shape the
environment and counter terrorism.”2 According to that document, the Section 1206 program is
important because it allows the United States to train and equip foreign military forces to respond
to “urgent and emergent threats,” and because it “provides opportunities to solve problems before
they become crises. ”3
Origins and Evolution of Section 1206 Authority
In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, some DOD officials
sought a means to increase U.S. support to foreign military and security forces in order to disrupt
terrorist networks. Although “train and equip” authority had resided with the State Department
since 1961, DOD submitted proposed legislation to Congress in early 2005 for authority and
appropriations to train and equip foreign forces. As submitted to Congress, the DOD-proposed
legislation differed in several important respects from the legislation that was eventually passed.

1 State Department programs under which foreign military forces are trained are the International Military Education
and Training (IMET) and the Expanded IMET (E-IMET) programs. Equipment is provided to foreign governments
through the State Department Foreign Military Sales/Foreign Military Financing (FMS/FMF) programs. According to
DOD, this “traditional security assistance takes three to four years from concept to execution,” while “Global Train and
Equip authority allows a response to emergent threats or opportunities in six months or less.” U.S. Department of
Defense, Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request Summary Justification, February 4, 2008, p. 103. Hereafter referred to as
FY2009 DOD Summary Justification.
2 U.S. Department of Defense, Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request Summary Justification, May 2009, pp. 1-13.
3 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006

DOD’s proposed authorization bill would have vested new authority with the President to
“authorize building the capacity of partner nations’ military or security forces to disrupt or
destroy terrorist networks, close safe havens, or participate in or support United States, coalition,
or international military or stability operations.” The proposed legislation provided the Secretary
of Defense the lead on implementation, but gave a veto power to the Secretary of State: “The
Secretary of Defense may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, implement partnership
security capacity building. ” DOD could implement capacity building projects on its own, or by
transferring DOD funds to the Department of State or to any other federal agency. The
presidential and agency roles changed in subsequent versions.
The original authorization language would have allowed assistance to build up foreign military
and security forces for purposes similar to but more specific than those ultimately enacted into
law (Section 1206, P.L. 109-163). The types of forces that could be assisted were much broader,
and included “armies, guard, border security, civil defense, infrastructure protection, and police
forces.” The proposed annual cap on such assistance was $750 million, much greater than that
eventually approved.
DOD’s proposed appropriations language would have provided for the appropriation of up to
$750 million of funds from operations and maintenance accounts to provide assistance to military
or security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and provide assistance to other military forces in
friendly nations in the nearby region to enhance their capability to combat terrorism and to
support U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Secretary of Defense could use
those funds only with the concurrence of the Secretary of State.
Congressional Action in 2005
Neither DOD proposal for a global train and equip authority or appropriation was included in
legislation reported that year by the Armed Services committees or the Appropriations
committees. A modified version of the DOD authorization proposal was introduced by Senator
Inhofe as a floor amendment (S.Amdt. 2432) to the Senate version of the FY2006 NDAA. (S.
1042) On November 8, 2005. the Senate approved an amended version of that amendment,
supported by Senator Lugar. Both would provide authority for the purposes requested by DOD.
Each version of the Inhofe amendment, progressively strengthened the State Department role
compared to the DOD proposal. Conference committee negotiators made further changes,
however, strengthening the DOD role, diminishing the State Department role, restricting the types
of forces that could be supported, and lowering the funding cap.
The Inhofe amendment introduced on November 4, 2005, was similar to the DOD authorization
request in that it would have conferred authority on the President to build partnership security
capacity of foreign military and security forces on the President and authorized the use of up to
$750 million a year in DOD funds for the same purposes as the original DOD authorization
request. A major difference was the role of the State Department. The Inhofe amendment made a
request by the Secretary of State to the Secretary of Defense the trigger to initiate DOD support, a
seemingly stronger role than that of the DOD proposed legislation which required the Secretary
of Defense to seek the concurrence of the Secretary of State for any support. Like the DOD
proposal, however, the Inhofe amendment left DOD free to implement programs itself, or to
transfer funds to the Department of State or any other federal agency for implementation. (These
funds would remain available until expended.) In introducing the amendment, Senator Inhofe
indicated that the purpose of the new authority was to expedite train and equip assistance, and
expressed displeasure with then-current arrangements for train and equip programs conducted
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006

through the State Department. For instance, he noted that assistance to train and equip Georgia
forces for counterterrorism required that “Seven different authorities for funding and sources ...
be stitched together” in a process that took eight months. (Congressional Record, November 4,
2005, p S12395.)
The revised Inhofe amendment further strengthened the Secretary of State’s role by making three
changes. One change eliminated DOD’s ability to implement proposals on its own. Another
eliminated DOD’s ability to transfer funds to any civilian agency other than the State Department.
In short, the Secretary of Defense could provide partnership support only by transferring DOD
funds to the Department of State. A third change made such support subject to the authorities and
limitations in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and the FY2006 Foreign Operations bill. In a
floor statement on November 8, 2006, Senator Lugar said that “the amendment as now written
leaves the authority for deciding which countries, and when, how, and why foreign assistance
should be provided, in the hands of the Secretary of State. The amendment does not provide
statutory authority to the Secretary of Defense to establish a new foreign aid program outside the
purview of the Secretary of State. It does authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide funding to
the State Department for a new train and equip foreign assistance program. ”4 At the same time,
Senator Lugar acknowledged DOD concerns that the “State Department oversight of these kinds
of programs [is] cumbersome and slow.” He stated: “These obstacles need to be overcome. State
Department procedures should be streamlined and the two Departments should develop plans to
push these important programs forward efficiently and quickly.” (Congressional Record, Senate,
S12495.)
A final version, as discussed elsewhere, emerged from the conference committee. There were four
important changes from the Senate version. First, the conference committee version (Section
1206 of P.L. 109-163) stripped the leadership role from the Secretary of State and bestowed it on
the Secretary of Defense. Section 1206 broadened DOD’s role by providing authority for the
President to direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct or support a program to build the capacity
of a foreign military forces. It reduced the Secretary of State’s role by providing that the
Secretaries of Defense and State were to “jointly formulate any program directed by the
President” and the Secretary of Defense was to “coordinate with the Secretary of State in the
implementation of any program directed by the President. ” Second, the conference committee
version did not provide authority to assist security forces of any type. Third, it lowered the annual
funding cap considerably, to $200 million. And fourth, it broadened the purpose of the
counterterrorism element of the assistance from enabling foreign forces to disrupt or destroy
terrorist networks and to close safe havens to enabling them to conduct counter-terrorist
operations.
In their explanatory statement (H.Rept. 109-360, accompanying H.R. 1815), the conferees
described Section 1206 as a two-year pilot program, which would be reviewed at the end of that

4 Senator Lugar further stated that “the Secretary of State should retain full authority over decisions as to which
countries should receive assistance, the timing of its provision, and the way in which it should be provided. The
Department of Defense should continue implementing train and equip programs under the purview of the Secretary of
State.” He concluded: “All foreign assistance programs need to take place within a foreign policy context, with
consideration of the traditional concerns—the recipient country’s treatment of its own people, potential reactions from
neighboring sates in the region, and the overall bilateral relationship with the recipient country, including the assistance
in the war against terrorism. It is the Secretary of State’s job to weigh such foreign policy issues and make
recommendations to the President that strike the right balance for American interests. The amendment as now written
meets the concerns I had and I would request that I be listed as a co-sponsor.” (Congressional Record, Senate, S12495.)
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006

period. They noted that “under current law, foreign military training programs are conducted
exclusively under the authority of the Secretary of State. The conferees believe it is important that
any changes in statutory authorities for foreign military assistance do not have unintended
consequences for the effective coordination of U.S. foreign policy writ large, nor should they
detract from the Department of Defense’s focus on its core responsibilities, particularly the
warfighting tasks for which it is uniquely suited.”
Congressional Action and Concerns: 2006-2008
Congress made further changes to Section 1206 authority through amendments in subsequent
NDAAs, among them changes elevating the State Department’s role but at the same time vesting
authority for the program in the Secretary of Defense (with the concurrence of the Secretary of
State), raising the funding cap, and extending the duration of the authority. Section 1206 of the
John Warner NDAA for FY2007 (P.L. 109-364) eliminated the President’s role in directing the
Secretary of Defense to conduct or support such programs, and instead authorized “the Secretary
of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State” to conduct or support those programs.
It raised the authorized amount to $300 million, and it extended the authority through FY2008.5
This amendment was the result of a conference committee compromise over a proposed Senate
amendment that would have extended Section 1206 authority to combatant commanders. In their
explanatory statement, the conferees stated that “the authorities provided in this section are
provided in the spirit of a pilot program.... The conferees believe it will be important to
demonstrate through experience that these expanded authorities can and will be exercised
consistent with the effective coordination of U.S. foreign policy writ large. Furthermore, the
conferees strongly believe that foreign assistance programs are more appropriately funded
through the foreign assistance accounts, as administered by the Department of State, and urge the
administration to request sufficient funding for foreign military assistance in those accounts in
future years budget requests.”6

5 The DOD proposal for FY2007 NDAA authorization language had requested that authority to direct Section 1206
programs be vested in the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, rather than the
President, in order to “increase responsiveness by relieving the President of having to approve each Section 1206
program personally, while preserving important roles of both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State in
authorizing capacity-building programs under this provision. This would enable the Department of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, to pursue time-sensitive opportunities to build capacity of partner nations.” DOD
also requested the expansion of the types of forces that could be assisted to include security forces (“specifically
gendarmerie, constabulary, internal defense, infrastructure protection, civil defense, border protection, and
counterterrorism forces ... ”), and an increase in the spending cap to $750 million.
6 These changes were the result of a conference committee compromise on a Senate amendment to Section 1206 in S.
2766, its version of the FY2007 NDAA. See H.Rept. 109-702, the John Warner NDAA for Fiscal Year 2007,
Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 5122.
The Senate amendment would have permitted the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State,
to authorize commanders of the geographic combatant commands “to respond to unanticipated changes in a security
environment” within their area of responsibility (AOR) to spend up to $50 million per year per commander for Section
1206 purposes, with total spending limited to $200 million. In addition, the Senate Amendment would have permitted
the Secretary of Defense to authorize geographic combatant commanders “to respond to urgent and unanticipated
humanitarian relief or reconstruction requirements in a foreign country within the commander’s AOR” if the
commander determined that such assistance would promote the security interest of the United States and the recipient
country, up to a total of $200 million “in any country in a fiscal year.” In response, the House, which had no similar
provision, offered the amendment which was adopted. Although the proposed section to provide combatant
commanders with funding for existing Section 1206 purposes was deleted, elsewhere in the bill the conferees included
a provision to expand authority under the Combatant Commanders Initiative Fund to provide urgent and unanticipated
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006

Through the enactment of the Duncan Hunter NDAA for FY2009 (P.L. 110-417), Congress
rejected the Bush Administration’s 2008 request to make Section 1206 authority permanent law
under Title 10 (Armed Services) of the United States Code. Instead, it extended the temporary
authority for three years (i.e., through FY2011). P.L. 110-417 also expanded Section 1206
authority to include the provision of assistance to maritime security forces,7 and raised the
spending cap to $350 million.
In their respective conference reports on the FY2009 NDAA, both the House and the Senate
armed services committees expressed concern about whether Section 1206 funds were being
appropriately used.
• The Senate Armed Services Committee report reiterated the committee’s earlier position
that Section 1206 was intended as a pilot program, “not intended to duplicate or
substitute for other foreign assistance authorities, nor ... intended to sustain train and
equip programs over multiple years.” It expressed the committee’s concerns that Section
1206 funds were “being used for programs, particularly in countries where the terrorist
threat is currently low, that primarily serve to build counter-narcotics capabilities.”8
• The House Armed Services Committee report stated DOD had “pushed beyond the
clearly articulated limits of this authority” in the case of Panama, raising concern “about
the responsible execution of this authority in the future.” In the report, the committee
expressed its belief “that capable foreign partners play a vital role in the international
security environment but remain unconvinced that this authority should reside
permanently with the Department of Defense. The committee expects that, over the long-
term, these ‘train and equip’-type authorities, which appear to be migrating to the
Department of Defense, might better remain within the Department of State’s
jurisdiction.”9

(...continued)
humanitarian relief and reconstruction assistance.
7 As passed by the Senate, S. 3001 would have extended Section 1206 authority to security forces, specifically “a
foreign country’s coast guard, border protection, and other security forces engaged primarily in counterterrorism
missions in order for that country to conduct counterterrorism operations.” The Administration had requested authority
to train and equip a wide spectrum of security forces, including gendarmerie, constabulary, internal defense,
infrastructure protection, civil defense, homeland defense, coast guard, border protection, and counterterrorism forces.

8 S.Rept. 110-335 continued: “While recognizing a degree of overlap between counterterrorism and counternarcotics
capabilities, the committee urges the Department of Defense to fund programs to build counter-narcotics capabilities
using funds and authorities intended to support counter-narcotics activities, and if appropriate, seek any necessary
modifications to existing counter-narcotics authorities to support these activities. The committee also indicated that it
viewed U.S. Africa Command AOR counterterrorism needs as a priority for Section 1206 assistance.
9 H.Rept. 110-652 also encouraged DOD “to use members of the United States military to conduct the training
provided under this authority whenever possible.”
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006

Funding Provisions, Annual Obligations, and
Conditions
Section 1206 programs are funded from the DOD operations and maintenance account. During
the first two years of the program, DOD transferred funds from lower-priority missions to fund
activities under Section 1206, according to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Policy
(OSD/P). For FY2008, Congress appropriated $300 million for Section 1206 in the DOD
Appropriations Act, 2008 (also known as the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, P.L. 110-
116). In its 2008 request for permanent Section 1206 authority, the Bush Administration requested
that spending authority be increased to $750 million, but in its FY2009 budget request asked for
$500 million in appropriations for that year.
Instead, in the FY2009 Duncan Hunter NDAA, Congress increased the authorized amount to
$350 million. In the same bill, Congress also provided authority for funds to be used in
consecutive fiscal years (i.e., funds made available for a program begun in one fiscal year may
also be used for that program in the next fiscal year).
The table below provides data on Section 1206 FY2006-FY2009 programs. Total program
obligations for FY2006 through FY2008 were $672.3 million: $106.3 million in FY2006, $277.3
million in FY2007, and $288.7 million in FY2008.10 Obligations for FY2009 through September
28, 2009, totaled $340.6 million, bringing the Section 1206 total obligations for all five fiscal
years to just over $1 billion. (See Table 1 below for a detailed accounting of obligations by
region and country.)
For FY2010, the Obama Administration first requested a $400 million appropriation for Section
1206 funding,11 which would have entailed a $50 million increase in the authorized funding level.
It appears to have revised its request to $345 million. (Across-the-board mandated cuts reduce the
actual amount available for Section 1206 programs in FY2010 from the authorized $350 million
to about $346 million, according to DOD.)
Conditions
Section 1206 of the FY2006 NDAA requires that programs conducted under its authority observe
and respect human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the “legitimate civilian authority within that
country.” The authority may not be used to provide any type of assistance that is otherwise
prohibited by any provision of law. It also may not be used to provide assistance to any country
that is otherwise prohibited from receiving such assistance under any other provision of law. The
legislation also requires a 15-day advance notification to the congressional defense, foreign
affairs, and appropriations committees before initiating each program. This notification must
specify, among other things, the program country, budget, and completion date, as well as the
source and planned expenditure of funds.

10 The FY2006-FY2008 figures were revised from previous editions of this report with updated DOD data provided on
July 29, 2009 and on September 28, 2009.
11 U.S. Department of Defense, Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request Summary Justification, May 2009, pp. 1-13
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006

Joint DOD-State Department Approval Process
As modified by the FY2007 John Warner NDAA, Section 1206 authority permits the Secretary of
Defense to provide such support with the “concurrence” of the Secretary of State. According to
DOD and State Department officials, that term has been interpreted to mean the Secretary of
State’s approval. Section 1206 requires both secretaries to jointly formulate any program and
coordinate in its implementation. Their respective agencies have developed an extensive joint
review process that some officials see as a potential model for other assistance programs. Section
1206 programs are developed under a “dual-key” authority (i.e., with the approval of both DOD
and Department of State officials). U.S. embassies and the military combatant commands are
encouraged to jointly formulate programs. Both parties “must approve each program explicitly in
writing”12 before the proposal is submitted to DOD and State Department staff in Washington,
DC, for their concurrence and, ultimately, the approval of the Secretaries of Defense and State.13
Congressional Action 2009
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (H.R. 2647
and S. 1390)
The House and Senate versions of the FY2010 NDAA (H.R. 2647, passed by the House on June
25, 2009, and S. 1390, incorporated as a substitute amendment into H.R. 2647 and passed by the
Senate on July 23, 2009) differ in their treatment of the Section 1206 authorization.
As marked up by the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) on June 10, and reported to the
House on June 18 (H.Rept. 111-166), the FY2010 NDAA would authorize $350 million for
Section 1206, according to the HASC press release. The committee report accompanying the bill
(H.Rept. 111-166) notes that the bill contains Section 1206 funding but does not include the
amount. The report also notes an evolution of the HASC position on Section 1206 funding.
In discussing Section 1206, HASC noted that while it previously had regarded Section 1206 “as
part of the foreign assistance family of authorities that has traditionally resided within the
Department of State’s purview” in order to assist foreign countries meet their own security needs
as part of a U.S. foreign policy framework, it now views Section 1206 is a “new type of
authority” to meet the Secretary of Defense’s assessment of a combatant commander’s need to
build certain capacity” as an important aspect of a combatant commander’s theater engagement
strategy.” (p. 411) While not discounting the idea that the authority might better be placed at the
Department of State than at DOD, HASC reflects that wherever the authority ultimately lies, the
need for projects responding to a DOD-led assessment of U.S. national security needs means that
the “Secretary of Defense must play a primary role in generating requirements.” (p. 412)
In its version of the FY2010 NDAA (S. 1390) reported July 2, 2009, SASC would limit to $75
million (of the total $350 authorized for Section 1206) spending on programs to build the
capacity of foreign military forces to participate in or support military and stability operations in

12 FY2009 DOD Summary Justification, p. 103.
13 E-mail from the OSD/P, May 20, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006

which the U.S. armed forces are a participant. This limitation would pertain to programs that
begin on or after October 1, 2009, and be effective for FY2010 and FY2011. In its report (S.Rept.
111-35), SASC explains this limitation as a means to ensure that Section 1206 funding served its
intended purpose (i.e., to provide a means to address emerging needs), not a substitute for
security assistance under the State Department Foreign Military Financing (FMF) authority. “To
this end,” SASC states in its report, “the committee has emphasized the need for 1206 programs
to develop plans to transition to FMF funding if longer-term assistance is required. The
Department’s stated desire to conduct sustained capacity building to prepare special operations to
deploy for coalition operations suggests that it intends to establish multi-year programs with
respect to certain recipient countries.” The $75 million limit is intended to reduce “the potential
impact of such multi-year programs on the section 1206 program as a whole.” The committee
report emphasized the temporary nature of Section 1206 authority and urged the Obama
Administration to review existing DOD and State Department security assistance authorities in
order to reconcile and “de-conflict” them and to improve their effectiveness.
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011
(H.R. 2410)
The FY2010-FY2011 Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R. 2410) would create a new
“Security Assistance Contingency Fund” for the State Department with purposes that would
overlap with Section 1206. As reported to the House on June 4 (H.Rept. 111-136) and passed by
the House on June 10, Section 841 would authorize the Secretary of State “to conduct a program
to respond to contingencies in foreign countries or regions by providing training, procurement,
and capacity-building of a foreign country’s military forces and dedicated counterterrorism forces
in order for that country to (1) conduct counterterrorist operations; or (2) participate in or support
military and stability operations in which the United States is a participant.” The types of
capacity-building support authorized include the provision of equipment, supplies, and training.
Section 841 would authorize a new appropriation of $25 million for each FY2010 and FY2011
for these programs, and the use of up to $25 million in Foreign Military Financing funds for these
programs in each of those fiscal years. Funds would remain available until expended.
Like Section 1206, this authority could not be used to provide any type of assistance otherwise
prohibited by law nor used to assist any foreign country otherwise prohibited from receiving such
type of assistance under any provision of law. Unlike Section 1206, this authority would be
exercised by the Secretary of State. The only coordination requirement is that the Secretary “shall
consult with the head of any other appropriate department or agency in the formulation and
execution” of programs conducted under this authority. It does not require the concurrence (i.e.,
approval) of the Secretary of Defense. Section 841 would require a 15-day notification to
congressional foreign affairs and appropriations committees before funds are obligated.
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 3326)
As reported by the House Appropriations Committee (July 16, 2009, H.Rept. 111-230) and passed
by the House (July 22, 2009), the House version of the DOD appropriations act (H.R. 3326)
would appropriate $195 million for Section 1206 funding. The Senate Appropriations Committee
version (reported September 10, 2009, S.Rept. 111-74) would appropriate $345 million. Both
versions of the bill would appropriate Section 1206 funds as part of the Operations and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide budget, under the Defense Security Cooperation Agency account.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006

Table 1. Section 1206 Funding: FY2006-FY2009 Obligations
(as of Sept. 28, 2009)
($ U.S. millions)
Recipient(s)
Program
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Totals
General Human Rights/Respect for Civilian Authority (HR/RCA) Training
Recipients unspecified.
Funding to Defense
Institute of International
— — 0.6 —
Legal Studies to conduct
training.
HR/ RCA)Training
Recipients and trainer(s)
Follow-on to FY08 HR/RCA
unspecified.
training for 35 countries
— — — 1.2
Bangladesh, Guyana,
Kyrgyzstan, Suriname,
Indonesia are named
— — — 0.3
recipients. Trainer(s)
Follow-on to FY08 HR/RCA
unspecified.
training.
Total HR/RCA Training
0 0 0.6 1.5 2.1
AFRICA
Chad
Tactical Airlift Capacity Training
— 1.7 — —
1.7
Djibouti
Maritime Domain Awareness
(MDA), Response, Interdiction,
and Coastal Security
— 8.0 — —
Enhancement
16.6
Counterterrorist (CT)
Communications Package
— — 5.1 —
CT
Capabilities
Package
— — — 3.5
Ethiopia
CT Communications and
Combat Engineering Capability
— —
13.3 —
Night Vision Capability Package
— — 4.4 —
28.0
Regiment and Platoon CT
Initiative
— — —
10.3
Kenya
Border
Security
Initiative
— — 4.1 —
Border and Coastal Security
26.3
Enhancement
— — 7.0 —
Maritime
Security
Initiative
— — —
15.2
Mali
Light infantry Equipment for CT
(Redirected FY2007 Mauritania
aid and additional storage and
4.5
0.6
5.1
transportation costs charged in
FY2009.)
Nigeria
CT Capacity Building for Military
Forces (Original notified

obligation was $4.1 million; this
— — — 1.5
2.4
figure represents DOD’s
expected expenditure.)
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006

Recipient(s)
Program
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Totals
Light infantry Vehicles,
Communications Equipment, and
other equipment (FY09 cost of
redirecting some FY07 Chad

0.9
program aid to Nigeria; the
amount of the FY07 obligation
for this aid was not provided.)
Tunisia
Suppressing Trans-Border
Terrorist Activity
— —
10.0 —
Intelligence, Surveillance and
18.8
Reconnaissance Capability to
— — — 8.8
secure borders.
Chad, Mauritania, Nigeria Civil-Military Operations
and Senegal
Training in Support of the
— 3.4 — —
3.4
TransSahara CT Program
Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, East Africa Regional Security
Tanzania
Initiative
—
18.0 — —
18.0
Nigeria and Sao Tome
Gulf of Guinea Regional
and Principe
Maritime Awareness Capability
6.8 — — —
6.8
Aid
Chad and Nigeria
Multinational Information-
sharing Network Aid
6.2 — — —
6.2
Algeria, Chad, Mali,
Partner Nation Intelligence
Mauritania, Morocco,
Capability Aid
— 1.1 — —
1.1
Niger and Senegal
Algeria, Benin,
MDA and Territorial Water
Cameroon, Cape Verde,
Threat Response Capability
Republic of the Congo,
Establishment
Gabon, Ghana, Gambia,
Guinea, Liberia,
— 5.8 — —
5.8
Morocco, Mozambique,
Senegal, Sierra Leone,
and Sao Tome and
Principe
Benin, Cameroon, Cape
West and Central Africa
Verde, Gabon, Ghana,
Maritime Equipment Package
— —
11.0 —
11.0
Sao Tome & Principe,
Senegal, Togo
Cameroon, Gabon,
West Africa Maritime Security
Senegal, Sierra Leone
Capability Enhancement
(Guinea deleted due to
— —
12.5 —
12.5
the Dec. 2008 coup
d’etat.)
Mozambique, Tanzania,
South East African Maritime
Mauritius, Seychelles
Security Initiative
— — — 8.6
8.6
Total
Africa
13.0 42.5 67.4 49.4
172.3
GREATER EUROPE
Albania
CT Capability Aid
—
6.7
—
—
12.2
Maritime Coastal Patrol CT
— — 5.5 —
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006

Recipient(s)
Program
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Totals
Capability Enhancement
Georgia
CT
Capability
Aid
— 6.5 — —
18.0
Special Forces T&E

11.5
—
Macedonia
CT
Capability
Aid
— 3.0 — — 3.0
Ukraine
CT
Capability
Aid
—
12.0 — — 12.0
Total Greater Europe
—
28.2 17.0
0 45.2
ASIA AND THE PACIFIC (Including Central Asia)
Indonesia
Integrated Maritime Surveillance
System
18.4 — — —
Eastern Fleet Regional
Command Center
— 3.8 — —
Eastern Fleet Maritime
Equipment
7.3 —

Celebes Sea and Malacca Strait
Network
— 6.1 — —
57.5
Coastal Surveillance Stations
— 11.5 4.3 —
Western Fleet Command and
Control (C2) Center and HQ
— — 2.0 —
Command, Control,
Communications and
— — 4.1
Computers (C4) Surveillance
—
and Reconnaissance
Kazakhstan
Coalition CT and Stability
Operations Capacity Aid
—
19.2 — —
31.7
Caspian Security
— —
12.5 —
Kyrgyzstan
Increasing Armed Forces CT
Capabilities
— —
12.0 —
21.6
CT
Forces
Support
— — — 9.6
Malaysia
Eastern Sabah MDA Radars
—
13.6
—
—
Strait of Malacca MDA Support
— 2.2 — —
MDA Package
— —
11.5 —
CENTRIX Stations
— 0.5

43.9
—
C2 Center for Joint Forces
Sabah HQ
— — 7.1 —
Maritime Interdiction Package
— — 9.0 —
Philippines
Maritime T&E for Interdiction
Purposes
— 3.0 — —
55.1
Coast Watch South High
Frequency Radios (FY07)/
— 1.8 11.1 —
Radars for Sulu Archipelago
(FY08)
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006

Recipient(s)
Program
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Totals
Maritime Interdiction Capability
— 6.4 — —
Interdiction and Offensive
Capabilities Improvement (of
— 4.4 — —
UH-1 Huey helicopters)
Border Control Interdiction
— — 5.8 —
Coast Watch South (CWS)
Radars for Eastern Mindanao
— — —
14,5
and adjacent border surveillance
CWS Intelligence – Operations
CT Capability
— — — 8.1
Sri Lanka
Maritime Security T&E for
Interdiction Purposes
11.0 — — —
Aircraft
C2
Integration
— 6.0 — —
18.4
Maritime Security and Navy
Interdiction Capability
— 1.4 — —
Total
Asia
and
the
Pacific
29.4 87.2 79.4 32.2
228.2
MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH/SOUTHWESTERN ASIA
Azerbaijan
Naval Commando CT Training
—
—
1.7
— 1.7
Bahrain
Patrol
Boats
5.3 — — —
Coastal Patrol Capability
Development
— 24.6 — —
Defense Force
Counterintelligence Analysis
— 0.04 — —
Center Development
50.4
Defense Force Special
Operations T&E
— — 4.3 —
Coastal Surveillance System
Upgrade
— — —
16.2
Bangladesh
Maritime Patrol and Interdiction
Initiative
— — 7.2 —
15.7
Naval Special Forces CT T&E
—
—
—
8.5
Lebanon
Military Assistance to Lebanese
Armed Forces
10.6
30.6 — —
Special Operations Forces T&E
— — 7.2 —
Secure Communications for
106.9
Special Operations Forces
— — 9.2 —
Urban Soldier Equipment
—
—
—
21.5
Cessna
Caravan
— — —
27.8
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006

Recipient(s)
Program
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Totals
Pakistan
Border Area T&E/ Marines T&E
27.5
5.7
—
—
Enhance Shared MDA and
Cooperative Maritime Security
— 8.1 — —
Aid
Helicopter CT Capability
— —
20.9 —
Special Services Group COIN
Kick Start Initiative
— —
17.9 —
Mi-17 Support
— —
17.0 —
Mi-17
Helicopters
— — —
80.0
210.6
Aviation Maintenance Shelters in
Federally Administered Tribal
— — — 3.1
Areas
Army and Navy Capability
Building to Investigate Explosives
— — — 0.6
Special Operations Forces CT
Package
— — —
17.0
Ground-Based Intelligence S&R
Capability
— — —
12.8
Yemen
Cross Border Security and CT
Aid
5.0 — — —
Yemeni Special Operations
Capacity Development to
—
26.0 — —
enhance border security
Air Force Aerial Surveillance
Initiative
— — — 5.9
98.2
Coast Guard Maritime Security
Initiative
— — —
30.1
Increased Border Security CT
Initiative
— — —
25.4
Explosive Ordnance Disposal
Initiative
— — — 5.8
Total Middle East and South Asia
48.4
95.0
85.4
254.7
483.5
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
Mexico
CT Capabilities (FY07)/ CT
Capability Package (FY08)
— 1.0 13.0 — 14.0
Dominican Republic and
Joint Maritime CT Capability Aid
Panama
15.5 — — — 15.5
Bahamas, Dominican
Caribbean Basin Maritime
Republic, Honduras,
Security Aid (radios and boats)
—
23.4 — — 23.4
Jamaica, and Nicaragua
Bahamas, Belize,
Caribbean Basin Capability
Dominican Republic,
Enhancements
— —
12.1 — 12.1
Honduras, Jamaica, and
Panama
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006

Recipient(s)
Program
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Totals
Belize, Guyana,
CT Unit T&E for participation in
Honduras, and Suriname
Operation Enduring Freedom
— —
13.8 — 13.8
Total Western Hemisphere
15.5
24.4
38.9
0
78.8
Additional Transportation Expenses for items

obligated FY06-FY08 but delivered later.
— — — 3.0
3.0






Totals
106.3 277.3 288.7 340.6 1,013
Source: Office of the Secretary of Defense. Updated figures for FY2006-FY2008 provided July 29, 2009 and
September 28, 2009. FY2009 figures as of September 28, 2009.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.


Author Contact Information

Nina M. Serafino

Specialist in International Security Affairs
nserafino@crs.loc.gov, 7-7667




Congressional Research Service
14

---