Global Security Contingency Fund:
Summary and Issue Overview
Nina M. Serafino
Specialist in International Security Affairs
January 22, 2013
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 FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 112-81), Section 1207, created a new
Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) as a four-year pilot project to be jointly administered
and funded by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the State Department. The purpose of the
fund is to carry out security and counterterrorism training, and rule of law programs. (There also
are three one-year transitional authorities for assistance to Africa and Yemen.) 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 GSCF is seen as an important step in improving U.S. efforts to enable foreign military and
security forces to better combat terrorism and other threats. It incorporates features of previous
legislation and reflects recommendations to address multiple deficiencies in 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.
Despite Administration requests for GSCF appropriations in the FY2012 and FY2013 budgets,
Congress has appropriated no new funding to the account. In the FY2012 omnibus appropriations
act (P.L. 112-74), Congress permitted DOD and the State Department to transfer up to the $250
million from specified accounts, with a limit of $200 million from DOD and $50 million from
State. The FY2012 NDAA authorized higher limits with the condition that State contribute not less
than 20% and DOD not more than 80% for each activity. For FY2013, under the Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (H.J.Res. 117, P.L. 112-175), there is no GSCF funding because
while the resolution provides for appropriations to continue (at the FY2012 level plus 0.612%)
through March 27, 2013, it does not provide for a continuation of GSCF transfer authority.
The Administration has taken steps to program FY2012 funds. In mid-2012, it notified Congress
that it would initiate programs for Yemen and East Africa under the “transitional” (Section
1207(n), P.L. 112-81) authority with authorized funding up to $75 million each. These are being
implemented. Later in the year, the Administration transferred $44.8 million to the GSCF for
programs under the core GSCF legislation, which provided for country selection by the
Administration in the course of the fiscal year. The Secretary of State has designated seven
countries as eligible for this assistance: Nigeria, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Libya, Hungary,
Romania, and Slovakia. The Administration must notify congressional committees with detailed
program plans before the programs can begin.
Issues include whether the State Department has the ability and capacity to lead GSCF activities;
possible 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.
Congressional Research Service
Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Origins of the GSCF Concept .......................................................................................................... 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 ................................................... 4
Transitional Authorities for Horn of Africa Counterterrorism and Peacekeeping
and Yemen Counterterrorism ........................................................................................... 5
Funding Provisions and Expiration .................................................................................................. 5
DOD-State Proportional Limitation .......................................................................................... 6
DOD FY2012 Funding .............................................................................................................. 6
State Department FY2012 Funding ........................................................................................... 6
FY2013 Funding ........................................................................................................................ 6
Transitional Authorities’ FY2012 Funding ................................................................................ 6
Limitations, Conditions, and Exemptions ........................................................................................ 7
Congressional Oversight .................................................................................................................. 7
Current Status .................................................................................................................................. 8
GSCF FY2012 Programs ........................................................................................................... 8
Transitional Authorities for Yemen and East Africa .................................................................. 9
Issues for Congress in Brief ............................................................................................................. 9
The State Department’s Ability to Lead .................................................................................... 9
Possible Drawbacks for DOD.................................................................................................. 10
DOD Authority to Train Foreign Security Forces ................................................................... 10
Strategy Issues ......................................................................................................................... 11
Looking Ahead: FY2013 Funding and Beyond ............................................................................. 11
Tables
Table A-1. GSCF FY2012 Program Summaries and Funding Transfers ....................................... 12
Appendixes
Appendix. FY2012 GSCF Programs and Funding ........................................................................ 12
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 13
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 urgent security and stabilization 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-related assistance.1 Its 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, to prevent conflict, and to stabilize countries in
conflict or emerging from conflict.
Congress, demonstrating its interest in the experiment, 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 in Africa and one for Yemen, all expiring at the end of FY2012.
Many see the GSCF as an innovative first step in addressing problems inherent in the current
agency-based budgeting and program development systems. Although some view the GSCF
primarily as a means to transfer funds from DOD to the State Department, with its relatively
smaller budget, others look to it 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 to
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, 20016 [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 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 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). (See Appendix B for the text.) 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
conceptual origins of the legislation and then summarizes the legislation’s provisions. It concludes
with a short analysis of salient issues.
Origins of the GSCF Concept
Although the GSCF was proposed as a means to secure flexible funding for emerging needs, 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 abroad. A core problem is
the U.S. government’s current agency-centric national security system that inhibits 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 situations. 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. (Section 1207 of the FY2006
NDAA, P.L. 109-163, as amended.) This “Section 1207” authority expired at the end
of FY2010. Congress established a U.S. Agency for International Development
account, the Complex Crises Fund in FY2011 for similar purposes, with a $50
million appropriation in FY2011 and $xx in FY2012, but 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 is unnecessary duplication and
overlap. And 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 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.
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.
Congressional Research Service
2
Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview
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.6 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 requested and Congress 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, by creating a
new system of shared responsibility, or by strengthening the State Department’s lead
while also encouraging greater sharing of responsibility in order to enhance
collaboration among all agencies involved in security sector assistance.
• 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 to identify potential difficulties when
combining State Department and DOD funds and to test the possibilities for combining agency
expertise and efforts to conduct security activities. If successful, the GSCF is seen as a possible
precedent for a broader interagency funding and efforts.
6 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
are available to either the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense for such assistance.) The
first two of these purposes—security and counterterrorism training, and coalition support—are
nearly identical to those of the Global Train and Equip authority provided by Section 1206 of the
FY2006 NDAA, P.L. 109-163, as amended, with two exceptions. For Section 1206 programs, the
Secretary of Defense is in the lead.7 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.
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.
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
7 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
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 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; and
• “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)8 specifies that this account has
been placed under the State Department. FY2012 authorization and appropriations amounts for
the GSCF differ greatly, with an authorized limit of $350 million in the FY2012 NDAA, and a
limit of $250 million in the appropriations act (i.e., $100 million less than the authorized amount).
In FY2013 and future fiscal years, the total amount authorized for expenditure may not exceed
$300 million.9
Despite the State Department’s request for a $50 million appropriation, the FY2012
appropriations act provided no new money for the fund, but permits DOD and the State
Department to transfer up to the $250 million from other accounts, with a limit of $200 from
DOD and $50 million from State. 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.) 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.
8 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 112-74, signed into law December 23, 2011.
9 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
5
Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview
DOD-State Proportional Limitation
The authorization bill 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%.
DOD FY2012 Funding
Complementing the P.L. 112-74 appropriations act authority for DOD to transfer funds to the
GSCF, the P.L. 112-81 authorizing legislation provided DOD with a new transfer authority of up
to $200 million per fiscal year,10 permitting DOD to transfer funds from its defense-wide
operation and maintenance account to the GSCF. The appropriations act required the Secretary of
Defense to notify the congressional defense committees in writing 30 days before making the
transfer, providing the source of the funds and a detailed justification, execution plan, and
timeline for each proposed project.
State Department FY2012 Funding
Just as with DOD, the P.L. 112-74 appropriations act provided no new monies for the State
Department contribution to the fund. Instead, this act permits the State Department to transfer up
to $50 million from funds appropriated in three accounts (i.e., International Narcotics Control and
Law Enforcement [INCLE], Foreign Military Financing [FMF], and Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Capability Fund [PCCF]) or any other transfer authority available to the Secretary of State.11
FY2013 Funding
Thus far, there is no FY2013 GSCF funding. In its FY2013 budget submission, the State
Department requested a $25 million GSCF appropriation. DOD did not request an appropriation
or any new transfer authority. For FY2013, under the Continuing Appropriations Resolution,
2013 (H.J.Res. 117, P.L. 112-175), there is no GSCF funding. While the resolution provides for
appropriations to continue (at the FY2012 level plus 0.612%) through March 27, 2013, it does not
provide for a continuation of GSCF transfer authority.
Transitional Authorities’ FY2012 Funding
Of the $350 million Congress authorized for the GSCF in FY2012, up to $150 million could be
used for two specified purposes: (1) $75 million to enhance “the ability of the Yemen Ministry of
Interior Counterterrorism Forces to conduct counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda in the
10 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.
11 Division I, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012, Title VIII,
Overseas Contingency Operations, Section 8004.
Congressional Research Service
6
Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview
Arabian Peninsula and its affiliates” and (2) an additional $75 million to support counterterrorism
operations in East Africa. Uses permitted in East Africa were 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 for enhancing the capacity “of national military forces
participating in the African Union Mission in Somalia to conduct counterterrorism operations”
against those same forces.
Limitations, Conditions, and Exemptions
Congress provided GSCF authority notwithstanding any other provision of law, with two
exceptions. These are the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (FAA) (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 three-year GSCF authorization is not intended
to replace other legislation.12 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
Reporting requirements are extensive, but not unusual. There are four separate reporting
requirements, one in the appropriations legislation before funds are transferred and three in the
authorization legislation, one for a report before programs are initiated, one when guidance is
issued, and one an annual report.
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, but is not 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.
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.
12 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
7
Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview
• The Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, must 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.
• Another 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.
• A third requirement in the authorizing legislation 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.
Current Status
GSCF FY2012 Programs
For programs to be conducted under FY2012 funding, the Secretary of State designated seven
countries as recipients of GSCF assistance: Nigeria, Philippines, Bangladesh, and Libya, as well
as three Central European countries, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia. In August and September,
2012, the State Department and DOD submitted requests to the Appropriations Committees to
transfer $44.8 million from designated funds to the GSCF. These funds were transferred before
the end of FY2012, according to the State Department. As of the date of this report, detailed
programs are still being developed. (See Table A-1 in the Appendix for summaries of the
programs and funding transferred.)
In May, 2012, the House Armed Services Committee, in its report on the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2013 (H.R. 4310), expressed concern with the direction and speed of the
process of developing GSCF programs. It stated its expectation that the departments “begin
exercising the authority in a timely manner.” 13
13 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. “The committee is concerned that as the Department of State and the
Department of Defense establish the organizational procedures to administer the GSCF, they will create bureaucracies
and processes that unnecessarily constrain an authority that Congress designed to be flexible and responsive to a range
of security challenges. The committee notes that, while the GSCF brings together a variety of authorities in a new way,
many of those authorities existed in previous forms prior to the GSCF formation. As a result, there are existing
organizations and procedures to administer them. The committee recognizes that, while these existing bureaucracies
may not be optimized for the administration of the GSCF, creative and productive leadership within the Executive
Branch will allow the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense to use them to exercise the GSCF authority even
as they finalize the structure for its administration. The committee believes that this will encourage the development of
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8
Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview
Transitional Authorities for Yemen and East Africa
For the transitional programs, DOD provided Congress with the required 15-day advance
notification of program initiation on June 15, 2012, for Yemen and on July 5, 2012 for East
Africa.14 It subsequently implemented these programs.
For FY2013-FY2014, Section 1203 of the conference version of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (P.L. 112-239, H.R. 4310) provides for the continuation of
the Yemen and East Africa programs under a new DOD authority. This authority is to expire at the
end of FY2014 (September 30, 2014) or “the date on which the Global Security Contingency
Fund achieves full operational capability” if that should occur earlier.
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
related programs. For others, the GSCF proposal and specific provisions of the bill raise a number
of issues, some of which are summarized below. 15
The State Department’s Ability to Lead
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 assistance,16 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 provided most GSCF funding. This is 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.
(...continued)
an organizational process that is as agile and flexible as the GSCF authority was designed to be. Since the GSCF is a
pilot program, the committee fully expects that there will be a refinement process over its lifespan. It does not expect
the administrative process to be in final form before the end of fiscal year 2012, nor in time for the presentation of the
first proposed GSCF activity. The committee expects the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense to begin
exercising the authority in a timely matter.”
14 For more information on counterterrorism efforts in Africa and U.S. support for those efforts, see CRS Report
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, including Section 1207(n) funding, see CRS Report RL34170, Yemen:
Background and U.S. Relations, by Jeremy M. Sharp.
15 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.
16 See footnote 6.
Congressional Research Service
9
Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview
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 funding17), 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
resource security assistance rather than resolve it.18 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 the State Department itself in the case of overall State
Department budget reductions.
Others may be 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 programs19
without increasing the size of its staff. Some also view the State Department as lacking the
institutional interest and will necessary to plan and oversee20 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.
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 this constrained budget environment. In addition, some perceive possible future
disadvantages. 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 could mean sacrificing
some of the control and flexibility over 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
17 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.
18 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.
19 For more on this topic, see CRS Report R42155, pp. 57-60.
20 As with other security assistance programs under both State Department and DOD leads, GSCF programs are
expected to 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
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, although, point out that
such police activities conducted within the GSCF framework would probably be subject to
greater State Department oversight than those conducted under a DOD authority.
Strategy Issues
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, improving the prospects for effective
interagency collaboration. Early on, the Obama Administration undertook a review of security
assistance to establish such a framework, but that effort has not concluded. Some now look to the
GSCF process as the crucible for competing concepts and new arrangements. Given the
Administration’s characterization of the GSCF as an experiment intended to identify issues in
interagency collaboration, the GSCF may indeed contribute to the goals of the review.
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 $25 million to the GSCF, as requested by the Administration, but there was no
corresponding provision in the House version of the bill (H.R. 5857).
Congressional Research Service
11
Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview
Appendix. FY2012 GSCF Programs and Funding
Table A-1. GSCF FY2012 Program Summaries and Funding Transfers
Funding
amounts/
sources
Recipients
Agency
Purposes
($ millions)
Nigeria
DOD Multi-year
counterterrorism (CT) and border security
$2.00 million;
package including projects to build a self-sustaining capacity to
CCIF.
counter improvised explosive devices (C-IED), promote
coordination among security agencies, and enhance border
security. Projects also include support for CT training for the
National Police Force and defense forces.
DOS Multi-year
counterterrorism and border security
$8.02 million;
program to help develop an information fusion capacity, civil-
PCCF.
military operations planning expertise, CT campaign plans, and
to improve C-IED capabilities, as well as to provide CT training
for the National Police Force and enhance border security.
Philippines
DOD Multi-year
maritime law enforcement program to develop
$8.00 million;
the Philippine National Police (PNP) Maritime Group and the
CCIF.
Coast Guard’s maritime security capabilities enabling the
military to control the Philippines’ maritime domain and to
improve law enforcement in coastal waters. Also to build PNP
capacity to train members in investigative, forensic, and
intelligence gathering and analysis skills.
DOS
Multi-year package of maritime security,
$8.02 million;
counterterrorism, law enforcement and border
PCCF.
security projects to assist security forces fulfill their new CT
and maritime security roles. Includes strengthening law
enforcement capacity in Mindanao, supporting PNP
development of strategic plans; building new and supporting
existing special boats units; helping the Coast Guard and other
security and maritime law enforcement forces to establish and
maintain a credible presence in the Philippines’ archipelagic
waters, and assisting in interagency planning and coordination at
the ministerial and operational levels.
Bangladesh
Special
Multi-year package to promote civilian-military
$2.80 million;
Operations
interoperability. Includes assistance to integrate Bangladesh
SOCOM MFP.
Command
Special Operations Forces (SOF) into the CT planning and
(SOCOM)
operations of the Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Home
$0.70 million;
and DOS
Affairs, to develop and institutionalize SOF planning at the
PCCF.
National Defense College and to develop an interagency
coordination command and control center, as well as to
provide staff training in SOF planning and activities.
Congressional Research Service
12
Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview
Funding
amounts/
sources
Recipients
Agency
Purposes
($ millions)
Libya
DOS
Multi-year program to improve Libya’s border security by
$4.00; PCCF.
building an effective, cross-ministerial border security
management capability, with primary focus on land borders.
Planning would incorporate cross-border training/cooperation
components with neighboring countries as they relate to
improvements in border management.
SOCOM and Program to build capacity of two Libyan special operations
$6.20 million;
DOS
forces (SOF) companies to conduct special operations
SOCOM MFP
missions to protect against external threats and terrorist
organizations.
$1.55 million;
PCCF.
Hungary
SOCOM
Multi-year program to develop deployable SOF task group
$2.80 million;
Romania
European
elements to enable them to support of U.S. and coalition
SOCOM MFP.
Slovakia
Command
operations, focusing on building capacity to conduct direct
and DOS
action, special reconnaissance, and internal defense mission.
$0.71 million;
PCCF.
Source: Based Congressional Notifications for funding transfers, August 24, 2012 from the Department of
Defense and September 4, 2012 from the Department of State.
Notes: Acronyms: CCIF=Combatant Commanders Initiative Fund (DOD budget); PCCF=Pakistan
Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund (State Department budget); SOCOM MFP=Special Operations Command
Major Force Program (DOD budget).
Author Contact Information
Nina M. Serafino
Specialist in International Security Affairs
nserafino@crs.loc.gov, 7-7667
Congressional Research Service
13