Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF):
Summary and Issue Overview
Nina M. Serafino
Specialist in International Security Affairs
August 1, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42641
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview

Summary
The new Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF), established by Congress in December 2011,
responds to long-standing congressional concerns that the U.S. government needs to address
multiple deficiencies that have undermined interagency efforts abroad, in particular efforts to meet
emergent challenges.
Created as a four-year pilot project by the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 112-
81), Section 1207, the GSCF is jointly administered and funded by the Department of State and the
Department of Defense (DOD).
The GSCF provides resources for training and other support to enable foreign military and security
forces to conduct security and counterterrorism operations and participate in coalition operations,
as well as for justice sector, rule of law, and stabilization programs. The GSCF is placed under the
State Department budget. Although decisions are to be jointly made by the Secretaries of State and
Defense, the mandated mechanism puts the Secretary of State in the lead. (The legislation also
includes three one-year transitional authorities for counterterrorism and peacekeeping assistance to
Africa and Yemen, for which the Secretary of Defense has the lead.)
The GSCF is seen as an important step in improving U.S. efforts to deal with crises and emergent
threats and to take advantage of unexpected opportunities. It incorporates features of previous
legislation and reflects recommendations to improve current national security structures and
practices. Many hope that it will provide a model for interagency cooperation on security
assistance that will overcome the disadvantages of the current system of agency-centric budgets
and efforts.
The FY2012 omnibus appropriations act (P.L. 112-74) does not appropriate new monies to the fund
for regular budget programs, but permits DOD and the State Department to transfer up to $250
million to the GSCF from other accounts, with a limit of $200 million from DOD and $50 million
from State from specified accounts. (P.L. 112-74 specifies that these transfer authorities are in
addition to any other transfer authorities available to these departments.) The FY2012 NDAA
authorizes a higher limit for FY2012 of $350 million. (This authorized amount includes both
GSCF funding and up to $150 million in funding for the one-year transitional authorities.) For
FY2013 and future years, the FY2012 NDAA sets a limit of $300 million. The FY2012 NDAA
also provides that the State Department contribution shall not be less than 20% of the total amount
required for a specific activity, and the DOD contribution not more than 80%.
In its February 2012 FY2013 budget submission, the State Department requested a $25 million
GSCF appropriation, and $50 million in transfer authority. DOD did not request an appropriation
or any new transfer authority.
Issues that Congress may choose to consider include the State Department’s ability and capacity to
lead GSCF activities; possible funding and flexibility drawbacks for DOD; the desirability of
providing DOD with authority to train non-military security forces, including law enforcement;
and the potential effectiveness of GSCF programs in the absence of a strategy for security
assistance. In the context of FY2013 appropriations action, Congress may consider whether to
provide a specific GSCF appropriation. The Senate version of the FY2013 Department of State,
Foreign Operations and Related Appropriations Act (S. 3241) would appropriate $25 million to the
GSCF.
Congressional Research Service

---

Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview

Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Origins ............................................................................................................................................. 2
Basic Provisions............................................................................................................................... 4
Uses and Approval Processes .................................................................................................... 4
Security and Counterterrorism Training.............................................................................. 4
Coalition Support ................................................................................................................ 4
Justice Sector, Rule of Law, and Stabilization Assistance................................................... 5
Transitional Authorities for Horn of Africa Counterterrorism and Peacekeeping
and Yemen Counterterrorism ........................................................................................... 5
Funding Provisions and Expiration.................................................................................................. 5
Funding Snapshot ...................................................................................................................... 5
Funding Provisions by Agency.................................................................................................. 7
DOD FY2012 Funding Provisions...................................................................................... 7
State Department FY2012 Funding Provisions................................................................... 7
Funding for FY2012 Transitional Authorities ........................................................................... 7
FY2013 Funding Request and Congressional Action................................................................ 8
Limitations, Conditions, and Exemptions........................................................................................ 8
Congressional Oversight.................................................................................................................. 8
Current Status of GSCF Assistance and Organization..................................................................... 9
Issues for Congress in Brief............................................................................................................. 9
The State Department’s Ability and Capacity to Lead the GSCF............................................ 10
Possible Drawbacks for DOD.................................................................................................. 11
DOD Authority to Train Foreign Security Forces ................................................................... 11
Strategic Framework................................................................................................................ 11
Looking Ahead: FY2013 Funding and Beyond............................................................................. 12

Tables
Table 1. GSCF Funding Limits........................................................................................................ 6

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 12

Congressional Research Service

---

Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview

Introduction
At the Obama Administration’s request, in December 2011 Congress enacted into law a new, joint
State Department and Department of Defense (DOD) Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF)
to assist countries with emergent security-related needs. The Administration proposed the GSCF
with its FY2012 budget submission as a “pilot project” for State and the DOD to jointly fund and
plan security efforts.1 These efforts include programs to provide training and support for foreign
governments’ security and counterterrorism operations, as well as justice sector, rule of law, and
stabilization programs.
As proposed, the GSCF’s stated purpose was to enable the United States to better “address rapidly
changing, transnational, asymmetric threats, and emergent opportunities.”2 “Pooled” DOD and State
Department funds would be used to develop interagency responses to build the security capacity
of foreign states, prevent conflict, and stabilize countries in conflict or emerging from conflict.
Demonstrating its interest in the experiment, Congress provided GSCF authority as Section 12073
of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 112-81) for four fiscal years rather than
the three years requested.4 As enacted, Section 1207 also contains two transitional authorities for
counterterrorism operations and peacekeeping support in Africa and one for counterterrorism
assistance in Yemen. All three transitional authorities expire at the end of FY2012.
Many see the GSCF as an innovative first step in addressing the problems inherent in the current
agency-based budgeting and program development systems that impede rapid U.S. responses to
events abroad. Although some view the GSCF primarily as a means to provide DOD funds for
activities usually conducted by the State Department, with its relatively smaller budget, others
look to the GSCF as a possible means to foster more timely, coherent, and effective U.S.
government responses to emerging threats and opportunities and to provide an impetus for improving
interagency coordination in security and stabilization missions.

1 Its origin was a broader mechanism proposed by former Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates to Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton in 2009 to create a joint State-DOD “pool” of funds to build the security capacity of foreign states,
prevent conflict, and stabilize countries in conflict or emerging from conflict. In public fora, Gates advocated the
pooled fund concept as a means to “incentivize collaboration between different agencies of our government.” Office of
the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) Speechwriters Office, “Remarks as Delivered by Secretary of
Defense Robert M. Gates, The Nixon Center’s Distinguished Service Award, The Nixon Center, Washington, D.C.,”
press release, February 24, 2010, http://www.usglc.org/USCLCdocs/Secretary%10of%20Defense%20Gates%20-
%20Nixon%20Center.pdf.
2 State Department FY2012 Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ), February 2011, p. 161.
3 This Section 1207 is not the same as the controversial Section 1207 Security and Stabilization Assistance provision of
the National Defense Authorization Act of FY2006 (P.L. 109-163), as amended, that authorized the Secretary of
Defense to transfer up to $100 million per fiscal year in defense articles, services, training or other support for
reconstruction, stabilization, and security activities abroad. That authority expired in FY2010.
4 The final legislation retains the basic concept and fundamental elements of the Administration’s request, but
incorporates compromises regarding differing uses, restrictions, and funding amounts among the Administration,
House, and Senate versions of the bill. The House version was contained in Section 1204 of H.R. 1540, the FY2012
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), as passed by the House May 26, 2011. The identical measure was
incorporated as Section 924 in H.R. 2583, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY2012, as passed by the House
Foreign Affairs Committee on July 21, 2011. The Senate Armed Service Committee (SASC) incorporated its proposal
as Section 1207 of S. 1253, the version of the FY2012 NDAA that SASC reported to the Senate on June 22, 2011
(S.Rept. 112-26). Earlier, SASC had incorporated the Administration’s proposal, submitted to Congress on May 6, in
its courtesy version of the FY2012 NDAA, S. 981, Section 1214, introduced May 12, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview

This report provides basic information on the GSCF legislation. It starts with a brief discussion of the
origins of the legislation, then summarizes the legislation’s provisions. It concludes with a short
analysis of salient issues.
Origins
The GSCF concept has its origins in long-standing perceptions that multiple deficiencies in
current national security structures and practices have undermined U.S. efforts to respond rapidly
and effectively to emergent situations abroad. Analysts have identified the U.S. government’s
current agency-centric national security system as a key impediment to rational budgeting and
planning for national security efforts that require contributions from multiple agencies. Analysts
have long proposed changes to address deficiencies along the following lines:5
• Provide the State Department with a flexible funding account to respond to emerging
needs and crises. For many years, the George W. Bush Administration repeatedly
sought a State Department emergency response fund that would facilitate immediate
responses to crises and emerging threats. Congress denied such requests several
times, but in 2005 it authorized DOD to transfer up to $100 million of its own funds
to the State Department for such purposes.6 “Section 1207” authority expired at the
end of FY2010; in FY2011, Congress established a U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) account, the Complex Crises Fund, for the same purposes,
with a $50 million appropriation in FY2011 and $40 million in FY2012 ($30 million
of which is for Overseas Contingency Operations). It has not made a similar account
available to the State Department.
• Develop mechanisms to promote greater interagency cooperation in planning
security and stabilization programs. Analysts point to many problems inherent in
programming by individual agencies. Because agencies usually do not consult or
coordinate with others when planning programs, there can be unnecessary duplication
and overlap. Also, because agencies conduct programs targeted at the issues that fall
under their purview, there are often serious gaps. Of particular concern are the
“governance gaps” (i.e., the formulation of security assistance programs to train and
equip military forces without components to improve the ability of government
institutions to manage those forces). The goal of greater interagency cooperation is to

5 These proposals are contained in a variety of reports by government agencies as well as non-governmental defense
and foreign affairs research organization. See, for example, U.S. Department of State and United States Agency for
International Development, The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), Washington, D.C.,
December 2010, p. 203; Gordon Adams and Rebecca Williams, A New Way Forward: Rebalancing Security Assistance
Programs and Authorities, Henry L. Stimson Center, Washington, DC, March 2011, p. 34; Project on National Security
Reform, Turning Ideas Into Action, September 2009, p. 219; RAND and the American Academy of Diplomacy,
Integrating Instruments of Power and Influence: Lessons Learned and Best Practices, Report of a Panel of Senior
Practitioners, 2008, pp. 22-23; Center for Strategic and International Studies, Integrating 21st Century Development
and Security Assistance, 2007, p. 38. For a CRS overview of the unified budget issue, see CRS Report R42133,
Building Civilian Interagency Capacity for Missions Abroad: Key Proposals and Issues for Congress, by Nina M.
Serafino, Catherine Dale, and Pat Towell, pp. 52-56, hereafter referred to as CRS Report R42133.
6 Section 1207 of the FY2006 NDAA, P.L. 109-163, as amended. See CRS Report RS22871, Department of Defense
“Section 1207” Security and Stabilization Assistance: Background and Congressional Concerns, FY2006-FY2010, by
Nina M. Serafino.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview

develop coherent security and stabilization programs that address all elements of a
problem.
• Clarify and rationalize security roles and missions. The appropriate division of labor
between the State Department and DOD, especially for security assistance, is a matter
of debate. Since military assistance first became a significant component of U.S.
foreign policy after World War II, oversight of those programs has always been
vested in a civilian, usually the Secretary of State. In 1961, Congress made the
Secretary of State responsible, by law, for “the continuous supervision and general
direction” of that assistance.7 Beginning in the 1980s, however, Congress has called
on DOD to contribute its manpower and funding to an increasingly broad range of
national security efforts under new DOD authorities. After the terrorist attacks on the
United States of September 11, 2001 (9/11), DOD has requested and Congress has
approved multiple new DOD authorities. Some fill gaps when civilian funding and
personnel are not available Others, DOD argues, provide a means to address critical
needs in an effort to protect U.S. troops and minimize U.S. military operations. The
goal is to reach agreement on an appropriate model for post-9/11 civil-military
activities and missions, either by strengthening the State Department’s ability to lead
and conduct security assistance programs on its own or by creating new modes of
sharing responsibility.
• Create a “unified” budget system for national security missions along functional
rather than agency lines. For over a decade, analysts have urged the U.S. government
to consolidate budgets for national security activities. In particular, they have
recommended that the White House present Congress annually with either a unified
national security budget or a series of unified budgets for a specific multi-agency
national security activity, such as counterterrorism or security assistance. The goal is
to rationalize government-wide resource allocation and promote due consideration of
the tradeoffs involved in allocating those resources. Unified budgets are also
recommended as a means to provide greater transparency and accountability in U.S.
government spending, and facilitate congressional oversight of national security
programs.
The Obama Administration presented the GSCF as a means of identifying potential difficulties in
combining State Department and DOD funds and testing the possibilities for combining agency
expertise and efforts to conduct security activities. If successful, the GSCF may provide impetus
to these changes and set a precedent for broader interagency funding and efforts.

7 The Foreign Assistance Act, as amended, Section 622(c) (P.L. 85-195, 22 U.S.C. 2382), provides that the Secretary of
State, under the direction of the President, “shall be responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of
economic assistance, military assistance, and military education and training programs ... to the end that such programs
are effectively integrated both at home and abroad and the foreign policy of the United States is best served thereby.”
Section 623 establishes the role of the Secretary of Defense regarding security assistance provided under the FAA,
giving him primary responsibility for (1) the determination of military end-item requirements; (2) the procurement of
military equipment in a manner which permits its integration with service programs; (3) the supervision of end-item use
by the recipient countries; (4) the supervision of the training of foreign military and related civilian personnel; (5) the
movement and delivery of military end-items; and (6) within the Department of Defense, the performance of any other
functions with respect to the furnishing of military assistance, education and training….” The Secretary of Defense is
also charged with responsibility for determining “priorities in the procurement, delivery, and allocation of military
equipment….”The term military assistance has gradually replaced by the more generic term “security assistance.”
There are no standard U.S. government definitions for either military assistance or security assistance.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview

Basic Provisions
Uses and Approval Processes
Assistance may be provided under the three-year GSCF authority for three purposes, as detailed
below. Assistance “may include the provision of equipment, supplies, and training.” (GSCF funds
would be available to either the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense for such
assistance.) The GSCF planning and approval processes are managed in the Department of State
by the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs and in the Defense Department by the Partnership
Strategy and Stability Operations office under the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
The first two GSCF purposes and uses—security and counterterrorism training, and coalition
support—are similar to those of the Global Train and Equip authority provided by Section 1206
of the FY2006 NDAA, P.L. 109-163, as amended. There are, however, four differences.8 For
Section 1206 programs, the Secretary of Defense is in the lead. In addition, Section 1206 may
only be used to assist military forces and maritime security forces, not the full range of security
forces permitted by Section 1207. Further, GSCF counterterrorism assistance may be provided to
the foreign government agencies responsible for the military and specified security forces
receiving assistance. Section 1206 has no such provision. Finally, GSCF authority is provided
notwithstanding any other provision of law with two exceptions (see below), while Section 1206
has no notwithstanding provision.
Security and Counterterrorism Training
Section 1207 (b)(1)(A) authorizes the use of the GSCF “to enhance the capabilities of military
forces and other security forces responsible for conducting border and maritime security, internal
security, and counterterrorism operations, as well as the government agencies responsible for such
forces.” Recipient countries would be designated by the Secretary of State with the concurrence
(i.e., approval) of the Secretary of Defense. Programs to provide this support would be jointly
formulated by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, and approved by the Secretary
of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense before implementation.
Coalition Support
Section 1207 (b)(1)(B) permits GSCF assistance to national military forces and other specified
security forces to enable them to “participate in or support military, stability, or peace support
operations consistent with United States foreign policy and national security interests.” Just as
with security and counterterrorism training assistance, recipient countries would be designated by
the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense. These programs are also
jointly formulated by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, and approved by the
Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, before implementation.

8 See CRS Report RS22855, Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress, by
Nina M. Serafino.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview

Justice Sector, Rule of Law, and Stabilization Assistance
Section 1207(b)(2) authorizes using the GSCF to assist the justice sector (including law
enforcement and prisons), and to conduct rule of law programs and stabilization efforts “where
the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, determines that conflict or
instability in a region challenges the existing capability of civilian providers to deliver such
assistance.” The Secretary of State also designates recipients of this type of assistance and
implements activities with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense. However, unlike the
preceding types of assistance where the Secretaries of State and Defense would jointly formulate
programs, the Secretary of State formulates these programs in consultation with the Secretary of
Defense. State and DOD staff will determine an appropriate consultation mechanism.
Transitional Authorities for Horn of Africa Counterterrorism and
Peacekeeping and Yemen Counterterrorism
In addition to the GSCF authority requested by the Administration, Section 1207(n) establishes
three new transitional authorities that would permit the Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, to assist counterterrorism and peacekeeping efforts in
Africa and Yemen during FY2012. Assistance may include the provision of equipment, supplies,
and training, as well as assistance for minor military construction, for the following purposes:
• “To enhance the capacity of the national military forces, security agencies serving a
similar defense function, and border security forces of Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Kenya
to conduct counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda affiliates, and al
Shabaab.”
• “To enhance the capacity of national military forces participating in the African
Union Mission in Somalia to conduct the counterterrorism operations described”
above.
• “To enhance the ability of the Yemen Ministry of Interior Counter Terrorism Forces
to conduct counter-terrorism operations against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
and its affiliates.”
Funding Provisions and Expiration
The FY2012 NDAA establishes a GSCF account “on the books of the Treasury of the United
States”; the FY2012 omnibus appropriations act (P.L. 112-74)9 specifies that it has been placed
under the State Department. The NDAA provides that the contribution of the Secretary of State to
an activity shall not be less than 20% of the total amount required for that activity, and the
contribution of the Secretary of Defense shall not be more than 80%.
Funding Snapshot
The FY2012 appropriations act provides no new money for the fund, but permits DOD and the
State Department to transfer up to $250 million from other, specified accounts during FY2012.

9 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 112-74, signed into law December 23, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview

The limits that may be transferred are $200 million from DOD and $50 million from State from
the specified accounts. (The FY2012 appropriations act also states that these transfer authorities
are in addition to any other transfer authorities available to these departments.)
Under the FY2012 NDAA, monies may be transferred from the GSCF to the “agency or account
determined to be the most appropriate to facilitate” assistance. (No official is specified as
responsible for the determination.) As noted above, the main GSCF authority expires on
September 30, 2015, but amounts appropriated or transferred before that date for programs
already in progress would remain available until the programs are completed.
FY2012 authorization and appropriations amounts for the GSCF differ. The FY2012 NDAA
authorized a limit of $350 million for FY2012 (i.e., $100 million more than the new transfer
authority provided in the appropriations acts). The FY2012 appropriations transfer authorities are
solely for the GSCF. The FY2012 NDAA authorized amount, however, covers funding for both
the GSCF and for the three transitional authorities. The FY2012 NDAA permits up to $150
million for the transitional authorities. Thus, if State and DOD choose to fund the transitional
authorities up to the full amount, the FY2012 NDAA authorized amount available for GSCF
programs would be $200 million, or $50 million less than the amount provided by the new
transfer authorities provided by the appropriations act.
For FY2013-FY2015, the FY2012 NDAA stipulates that the authorized amount may not exceed
$300 million.10
Table 1. GSCF Funding Limits
($ Millions)
Appropriations Authority
Appropriations
Appropriations
to Transfer Funds to GSCF
Specifically for
Request
NDAA Authorization
from Specified Accounts
GSCF
Fiscal
Year
DOD State DOD State Combined DOD State Combined DOD State
FY2012
0a 50a 200 NA 350 200 50
250
0
0
FY2013
0
25b 200 NA 300 NYD
NYD NYD NYD NYD
FY2014-
NYD NA 200 NA 300 NYD
NYD NYD NYD NYD
FY2015
Note: NA = Not Applicable; NYD = Not Yet Determined.
a. The Administration also requested a total transfer authority of $500 million, without further specification.
b. The Administration also requested a $50 million transfer authority.


10 The authorization act (FY2012 NDAA, P.L. 112-81) also provides the Secretary of State with the authority (under
section 635(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended) to accept contributions in the form of “money,
funds, property, and services.” Any amounts in the fund would be available until expended. GSCF monies could be
used for necessary administrative expenses.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview

Funding Provisions by Agency
DOD FY2012 Funding Provisions
Section 8089 of the P.L. 112-74 omnibus appropriations act provides that DOD may transfer up to
$200 million in DOD funds to the GSCF. The FY2012 NDAA does not authorize new funds to
effect that transfer, but provides that DOD may transfer up to $200 million per fiscal year11from
its defense-wide operation and maintenance account to the GSCF. Section 8089 provisions are
subject to the FY2012 NDAA cap on total funding and limit of no more than 80% on the DOD
contribution.
State Department FY2012 Funding Provisions
The State Department requested a $50 million appropriation as its contribution to the GSCF in
FY2012. Just as with DOD, however, the P.L. 112-74 appropriations act provides no new monies
for the State Department contribution to the fund. Instead, Section 8004 of this act permits the
State Department to transfer to the GSCF up to $50 million from funds appropriated to three
accounts in the State Department Overseas Contingency Operations section of the act, that is,
Foreign Military Financing (FMF), International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
(INCLE), and the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (PCCF).12 Section 8004
provisions are subject to the FY2012 NDAA cap on total funding and limit of no less than 20%
on the State Department contribution.
Funding for FY2012 Transitional Authorities
Of the authorized $350 million, the FY2012 NDAA states that up to $150 million may be
dedicated to two specified purposes.
• Up to $75 million may be used to improve counterterrorism operations in Africa.
This assistance may be used to enhance “the capacity of the national military forces,
security agencies serving a similar defense function, and border security forces of
Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Kenya to conduct counterterrorism operations against al-
Qaeda, al-Qaeda affiliates, and al Shabaab” and the capacity “of national military
forces participating in the African Union Mission in Somalia to conduct
counterterrorism operations” against those same forces.
• Up to $75 million may be used to enhance the ability of the Yemen Ministry of
Interior Counterterrorism Forces to conduct counterterrorism operations against al-
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and its affiliates.13

11 This transfer authority is provided “in accordance with established procedures for reprogramming under section 1001
of this Act ( P.L. 112-81) and successor provisions of law.” Section 1001 places a number of restrictions on
reprogramings, which can total no more than $4 billion and must be made from a lower to a higher priority program.
Section 1001 also provides that the amount transferred is consider to increase the amount authorized for the account to
which it is transferred. Transfer authority is also provided by Division A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L.
112-74, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2012, Section 8089.
12 Division I, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012, Title VIII,
Overseas Contingency Operations, Section 8004.
13 For more information on counterterrorism efforts in Africa and U.S. support for those efforts, see CRS Report
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview

FY2013 Funding Request and Congressional Action
In its FY2013 budget submission, the State Department requests a $25 million GSCF
appropriation and a $50 million transfer authority. DOD does not request an appropriation or any
new transfer authority. The Senate version of the FY2013 Department of State, Foreign
Operations and Related Appropriations Act (S. 3241) would appropriate $25 million to the GSCF,
but does not provide specific transfer authority. The House version of the bill (H.R. 5857) has no
GSCF provisions.
Limitations, Conditions, and Exemptions
Congress provides GSCF authority notwithstanding any other provision of law, with two
exceptions. These are the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961, as amended (P.L. 85-195),
Section 620A prohibition on assistance to governments supporting international terrorism, and the
FAA Section 620J prohibition on assistance to foreign security forces for which the Secretary of
State has determined there is credible evidence of gross violations of human rights (the “Leahy
Amendment”). The legislation makes clear that the four-year GSCF authorization is not intended
to replace other legislation.14 GSCF programs are required to include elements to promote the
observance of and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as respect for
legitimate civilian authority.
The notwithstanding provision does not extend to the transitional authorities. Two limitations
apply to the transitional authorities. Funding cannot be used “to provide any type of assistance
that is otherwise prohibited by any provision of law.” It also cannot be used to provide a country
with assistance that it is otherwise prohibited from receiving by any other provision of law.
Congressional Oversight
GSCF reporting requirements are extensive, but not unusual. The authorizing legislation requires
the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, to notify specified
congressional committees at three points. The committees to be notified are the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees and Armed Services Committees, the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs, and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
• The first notification requirement mandates that the Secretary of State, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, notify Congress 15 days after the date on
which all necessary guidance has been issued and the processes for implementing
programs “are established and fully operational.” A similar notification is required for
the transitional authorities.

(...continued)
R41473, Countering Terrorism in East Africa: The U.S. Response, by Lauren Ploch Blanchard. For more information
on Yemen and U.S. assistance to Yemen, see CRS Report RL34170, Yemen: Background and U.S. Relations, by
Jeremy M. Sharp.
14 Section 1207(e) states that the “authority to provide assistance under this section is in addition to any other authority
to provide assistance to foreign nations.”
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview

• The Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, must also
notify the specified committees not less than 15 days before initiating an activity. No
funds may be transferred into the fund until 15 days after Congress is notified. The
notification regarding the initiation of program activities is to include a detailed
justification for the program, its budget, execution, plan and timeline, a list of other
security-related assistance or justice sector and stabilization assistance being
provided to that country that is related to or supported by that activity, and any other
appropriate information. The transitional authorities carry similar reporting
requirements.
• A third requirement is for an annual report on programs, activities, and funding,
jointly submitted by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. The first
report is to be provided no later than October 30, 2012. Subsequent reports are to be
provided annually thereafter.
The appropriations legislation requires the State Department to notify the appropriations
committees 15 days prior to making any transfers from the INCLE, FMF, and PCCF accounts to
the GSCF in accordance with regular notification procedures, including a detailed justification,
implementation plan, and timeline for each proposed project. It is not, however, subject to prior
consultation with the appropriations committees. It requires DOD to notify the congressional
defense committees in writing 30 days prior to making transfers to the GSCF with the source of
funds and a detailed justification, execution plan, and timeline for each proposed project.
Current Status of GSCF Assistance
and Organization
As of the date of this report, no GSCF assistance has been provided.15 The departments are
developing an interagency consensus on national priorities for security sector assistance, as well
as a FY2012 assistance plan. DOD and State staff have examined various proposals, but none has
yet been deemed by both departments of sufficient priority to merit funding.
The House Armed Services Committee, in its report on the National Defense Authorization Act
for FY2013 (H.R. 4310), has expressed concern with the GSCF decision-making process. It
stated its expectation that the departments “begin exercising the authority in a timely manner.”16
Issues for Congress in Brief
For some policymakers and analysts, the GSCF proposal is a positive, long-awaited first step
toward the development of integrated, interagency funding streams for agencies that carry out

15 On June 15, 2012, however, DOD notified the Congress of plans for assistance to Yemen under the transitional
authority of Section 1207(n)(1)(C).
16 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013,
Report on H.R. 4310 together with Additional and Dissenting Views, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., May 11, 2012, H.Rept.
112-479 (Washington: GPO, 2012), p. 257.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview

related programs. For others, the GSCF proposal and specific provisions of the bill raise a number
of issues, some of which are summarized below.17
The State Department’s Ability and Capacity to Lead the GSCF
The GSCF puts the State Department, in the person of the Secretary of State, in the lead for all
but the transitional authorities for the Horn of Africa and Yemen. Some who have viewed
Congress’s approval of many new DOD security assistance authorities since 9/11 as a gradual
erosion of the traditional State Department lead on security assistance18 may see the GSCF as a
welcome reversal of that trend.
Nevertheless, some may wonder about the extent to which the Secretary of State may actually
exercise control if DOD provides most GSCF funding. This may be especially true as the
Secretary of Defense will be providing funds through an authority that permits the transfer of
funds from one activity to another but stipulates that the funds may only be transferred to a higher
priority activity. Activities that may be high priority for State are not necessarily high priority for
DOD.
Advocates of greater State Department control would prefer that Congress dispense with the
GSCF “pooled” fund and appropriate substantially more security assistance and related DOD
funding (particularly “Section 1206” building partnership capacity funding19) directly to the
international affairs budget, just as FMF, INCLE, and PCCF are currently appropriated. Some
fear that the decision to pool DOD and State Department funds rather than to appropriate funds
directly to the State Department budget will perpetuate the State Department’s lack of capacity to
handle security assistance rather than resolve it.20 On the other hand, others are concerned that
including all GSCF funding in the international affairs budget would leave GSCF activities
vulnerable to possible cuts by Congress or by the State Department itself as part of overall State
Department budget reductions.
Many analysts are concerned that the State Department lacks the capacity to plan and direct an
increased number of security assistance and related governance and rule of laws programs21
without increasing the size of its staff. Some also view the State Department as lacking the
institutional interest and will necessary to plan and oversee22 a large security assistance portfolio.
But others may point to the State Department’s creation of new programs under the Security
Assistance peacekeeping account (PKO) as evidence of State’s interest in this program area.

17 For more background on security assistance and a fuller exploration of associated issues, see CRS Report RS22855,
Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress, by Nina M. Serafino, and CRS
Report R41817, Building the Capacity of Partner States Through Security Force Assistance, by Thomas K. Livingston.
18 See footnote 7.
19 First authorized by Section 1206 (Authority to Build Partnership Capacity of Foreign Military Forces) of the FY2006
NDAA, P.L. 109-163, and subsequently extended and amended.
20 Gordon Adams and Rebecca Williams, A New Way Forward: Rebalancing Security Assistance Programs and
Authorities, The Henry L. Stimson Center, Washington, DC, March 2011, pp. 25,30.
21 For more on this topic, see CRS Report R42155, pp. 57-60.
22 As with other security assistance programs under both State Department and DOD leads, it is anticipated that GSCF
programs will be implemented and managed by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, a DOD agency jointly
funded by State and DOD.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview

Possible Drawbacks for DOD
For DOD, the GSCF may be perceived as entailing disadvantages as well. While some perceive
the GSCF’s ability to tap DOD funds for State Department programs of mutual interest as
beneficial, others see this effort as a problematic and unwarranted diversion of DOD funds,
particularly in an increasingly constrained budget environment. In addition, some analysts believe
that DOD at times needs to ensure the integrity of its own missions by the use of security and
stabilization assistance. Because GSCF purposes overlap those of DOD’s “Section 1206” train
and equip authority, where the Secretary of Defense is in the lead, some analysts view a
successful GSCF effort as someday leading to the elimination of Section 1206 and similar
authorities. For some analysts, such a move would mean sacrificing some of the control and
flexibility of programs provided through a DOD authority.
DOD Authority to Train Foreign Security Forces
The GSCF proposals also raise the continuing concern about DOD’s role in training security
forces with law enforcement functions. The GSCF legislation provides DOD with authority to
train and otherwise assist a wider range of foreign security forces than previously permitted.
Since FY2006, in conjunction with DOD requests for an expansion of Section 1206 authority,
Congress has repeatedly rejected providing DOD with authority to train and assist police and
other non-military forces, except for foreign maritime security forces. (Congress has, however,
specifically provided DOD with authority to train police in Afghanistan and Iraq.) The GSCF
provides authority for assistance to “security forces responsible for conducting border and
maritime security, internal security, and counterterrorism operations, as well as the government
agencies responsible for such forces,” without any limitation on the agency that could provide
such assistance. Opponents of this extension have argued that training security forces that
perform law enforcement functions is a civilian, not a DOD, function because military skills and
culture are distinct from those of civilian law enforcement. Proponents see sufficient overlap,
particularly for security forces that operate in lawless border areas and those that exercise
counterterrorism functions, to validate this expansion. Some analysts state that the GSCF joint
State-DOD program development provisions reduce the risks of the “militarization” of law
enforcement efforts.
Strategic Framework
Some analysts express concern that the Administration has requested a new security assistance
funding mechanism without first establishing a strategic framework that would set priorities and
clarify department and agency roles in security assistance. Early on, the Obama Administration
undertook a National Security Council-led review of security assistance to establish such a
framework, but that effort has not yet concluded. Some analysts state that it stalled over the issue
of an appropriate division of responsibilities between DOD and the State Department.
Some now look to the GSCF process as the crucible for competing concepts of responsibilities—
whether to reinvigorate the traditional State Department lead on all security assistance, placing all
security assistance resources under the State Department budget, or to develop a new paradigm of
shared responsibilities—and new arrangements. Given the Administration’s characterization of
the GSCF as an experiment intended to identify issues in interagency collaboration, the GSCF
may contribute to the goals of the review. Or, if DOD and the State Department are unable to
agree decisively upon a division of labor, Congress may opt to consider further legislation.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview

Looking Ahead: FY2013 Funding and Beyond
Even though the GSCF has been authorized for four years, through FY2015, Congress may
monitor its use closely and consider in-course changes. For instance, one necessary change may
be in the source of GSCF funding. For FY2012, Congress, in its appropriations action, provided
for the GSCF to be funded through transfers from specified State Department and DOD accounts,
not through new appropriations. The FY2012 NDAA transfer authority for funds from specified
DOD accounts to the GSCF extends through FY2015, but there is no corresponding State
Department long-term transfer authority. (The House-passed FY2013 Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, H.R. 6018, has no GSCF provision.) Without a new State Department transfer
authority, FY2012-FY2015 GSCF activities will depend on either a sizable FY2012 State
Department transfer from specified accounts as permitted by the FY2012 omnibus appropriations
act or on future annual appropriations. As mentioned above, the Senate version of the FY2013
Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Appropriations Act (S. 3241) would
appropriate $25 million to the GSCF, as requested by the Administration, but there is no
corresponding provision in the House version of the bill (H.R. 5857).


Author Contact Information

Nina M. Serafino

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


Congressional Research Service
12

---