{ "id": "R44444", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44444", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 453672, "date": "2016-05-26", "retrieved": "2016-09-09T19:31:57.333059", "title": "Security Assistance and Cooperation: Shared Responsibility of the Departments of State and Defense", "summary": "The Department of State and the Department of Defense (DOD) have long shared responsibility for U.S. assistance to train, equip, and otherwise engage with foreign military and other security forces. The legal framework for such assistance emerged soon after World War II, when Congress charged the Secretary of State with responsibility for overseeing and providing general direction for military and other security assistance programs and the Secretary of Defense with responsibility for administering such programs. Over the years, congressional directives and executive actions have modified, shaped, and refined State Department and DOD roles and responsibilities. Changes in the legal framework through which security assistance to foreign forces\u2014weapons, training, lethal and nonlethal military assistance, and military education and training\u2014is provided have responded to a wide array of factors.\nLegal Authorization and Funding \nFor most of the past half-century, Congress has authorized U.S. security assistance programs through Title 22 of the U.S. Code (Foreign Relations) and appropriated the bulk of security assistance funds through State Department accounts. DOD administers programs funded through several of these accounts under the Secretary of State\u2019s direction and oversight. Beginning in the 1980s, however, and increasingly after the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 (9/11), some policymakers have come to view the State Department authorities, or the funding allocated to them, as insufficient and too inflexible to respond to evolving and emerging security threats. \nAs a result, Congress has increasingly provided DOD with the means to offer security assistance under authorities in either Title 10 of the U.S. Code (Armed Services) or the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), both funded as part of the DOD budget. (These are collectively known as \u201cTitle 10\u201d authorities and referred to by DOD as \u201csecurity cooperation.\u201d) \nDOD security assistance and other security cooperation programs conducted under Title 10 authority and established prior to 9/11 include counternarcotics, counter-proliferation, humanitarian assistance, and assistance for training and equipping NATO forces. Title 10 statutes also provide authority for DOD to pay the expenses of foreign forces to enable them to participate in exercises, exchanges, and other military-to-military contacts. \nPost-9/11 DOD security cooperation authorities focus on counterterrorism assistance, and assistance to foreign forces in areas of conflict. Much of this assistance is for \u201cbuilding partner capacity\u201d (BPC) to enable foreign forces to take greater responsibility for their own defense and for achieving mutual security goals in order to reduce U.S. costs. As part of the BPC effort, recent legislation provides DOD with authority to help strengthen foreign Ministries of Defense and related defense institutions. (Some of these DOD authorities require the concurrence [i.e., approval] of the Secretary of State.) \nPost-9/11 innovations include Congress\u2019s establishment through NDAA authority of two joint State Department-DOD authorities with a lead role for the Secretary of State: (1) an Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund established in FY2011 and (2) the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF), a pilot project established in FY2012 to address emerging threats. In FY2006, Congress created a DOD \u201cjoint formulation\u201d BPC authority to address emerging counterterrorism threats, with DOD in the lead.\nTo some analysts, the increase of Title 10 authorities and funding to DOD for BPC support to foreign military and other security forces contributes to the perceived \u201cmilitarization\u201d of U.S. foreign policy. For others, the increase of Title 10 authorities emerged from perceived gaps in existing authorities but has resulted in a confusing, inefficient \u201cpatchwork\u201d of authorities and coordination arrangements that are not sufficient to meet all needs. \nIssues Covered in This Report\nSince the late 1940s, Congress has played an active role in shaping the legal and institutional construct for security assistance activities. As Congress continues to consider legislation governing security assistance and cooperation, and to conduct oversight of such programs, some Members may seek new ways to improve program effectiveness and address inefficiencies in planning and implementation.\nThis report provides an overview of U.S. assistance to and engagement with foreign military and other security forces, focusing on Department of State and DOD roles. It lays out the historical evolution and current framework of the Department of State-DOD shared responsibility. It concludes with a brief overview of salient issues:\nhow to assess effectiveness;\nwhether and how to modify or change the statutory and institutional framework; \nhow to reconcile institutional roles and available resources; \nhow to provide appropriate transparency for oversight.\nThis discussion is relevant to current FY2017 NDAA proposals. S. 2943, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) version of the FY2017 NDAA, contains broad proposals to consolidate many DOD security cooperation authorities under a new Title 10 chapter dedicated to security cooperation authorities, expanding some, and codifying some NDAA statutes. The House-passed version of that Act, H.R. 4909, would also consolidate a number of existing Title 10 and NDAA statutes under a new Title 10 chapter, but it does not expand existing nor propose new authority. \nThe appendixes provide information on the history of the State-DOD shared responsibility, as well as details of selected State Department and DOD security assistance and cooperation statutes. \nAdditional information on the DOD \u201cBuilding Partner Capacity\u201d programs and activities may be found in CRS Report R44313, What Is \u201cBuilding Partner Capacity?\u201d Issues for Congress, coordinated by Kathleen J. McInnis.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44444", "sha1": "d525986adc7010a85db0637e1fe2cf7354912a48", "filename": "files/20160526_R44444_d525986adc7010a85db0637e1fe2cf7354912a48.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44444", "sha1": "5740a04104a4169427bad0667ec9f815603578c3", "filename": "files/20160526_R44444_5740a04104a4169427bad0667ec9f815603578c3.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3153, "name": "Defense Strategy, Military Operations, and Force Structure" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 452652, "date": "2016-04-04", "retrieved": "2016-05-24T19:26:33.382941", "title": "Security Assistance and Cooperation: Shared Responsibility of the Departments of State and Defense", "summary": "The Department of State and the Department of Defense (DOD) have long shared responsibility for U.S. assistance to train, equip, and otherwise engage with foreign military and other security forces. The legal framework for such assistance emerged soon after World War II, when Congress charged the Secretary of State with responsibility for overseeing and providing general direction for military and other security assistance programs and the Secretary of Defense with responsibility for administering such programs. Over the years, congressional directives and executive actions have modified, shaped, and refined State Department and DOD roles and responsibilities. Changes in the legal framework through which security assistance to foreign forces\u2014weapons, training, lethal and nonlethal military assistance, and military education and training\u2014is provided have responded to a wide array of factors.\nLegal Authorization and Funding \nFor most of the past half-century, Congress has authorized U.S. security assistance programs through Title 22 of the U.S. Code (Foreign Relations) and appropriated the bulk of security assistance funds through State Department accounts. DOD administers programs funded through several of these accounts under the Secretary of State\u2019s direction and oversight. Beginning in the 1980s, however, and increasingly after the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 (9/11), some policymakers have come to view the State Department authorities, or the funding allocated to them, as insufficient and too inflexible to respond to evolving and emerging security threats. \nAs a result, Congress has increasingly provided DOD with the means to offer security assistance under authorities in either Title 10 of the U.S. Code (Armed Services) or the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), both funded as part of the DOD budget. (These are collectively known as \u201cTitle 10\u201d authorities and referred to by DOD as \u201csecurity cooperation.\u201d) \nDOD security assistance and other security cooperation programs conducted under Title 10 authority and established prior to 9/11 include counternarcotics, counter-proliferation, humanitarian assistance, and assistance for training and equipping NATO forces. Title 10 statutes also provide authority for DOD to pay the expenses of foreign forces to enable them to participate in exercises, exchanges, and other military-to-military contacts. \nPost-9/11 DOD security cooperation authorities focus on counterterrorism assistance, and assistance to foreign forces in areas of conflict. Much of this assistance is for \u201cbuilding partner capacity\u201d (BPC) to enable foreign forces to take greater responsibility for their own defense and for achieving mutual security goals in order to reduce U.S. costs. As part of the BPC effort, recent legislation provides DOD with authority to help strengthen foreign Ministries of Defense and related defense institutions. (Some of these DOD authorities require the concurrence [i.e., approval] of the Secretary of State.) \nPost-9/11 innovations include Congress\u2019s establishment through NDAA authority of two joint State Department-DOD authorities with a lead role for the Secretary of State: (1) an Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund established in FY2011 and (2) the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF), a pilot project established in FY2012 to address emerging threats. In FY2006, Congress created a DOD \u201cjoint formulation\u201d BPC authority to address emerging counterterrorism threats, with DOD in the lead.\nTo some analysts, the increase of Title 10 authorities and funding to DOD for BPC support to foreign military and other security forces contributes to the perceived \u201cmilitarization\u201d of U.S. foreign policy. For others, the increase of Title 10 authorities emerged from perceived gaps in existing authorities but has resulted in a confusing, inefficient \u201cpatchwork\u201d of authorities and coordination arrangements that are not sufficient to meet all needs. \nIssues Covered in This Report\nSince the late 1940s, Congress has played an active role in shaping the legal and institutional construct for security assistance activities. As Congress continues to consider legislation governing security assistance and cooperation, and to conduct oversight of such programs, some Members may seek new ways to improve program effectiveness and address inefficiencies in planning and implementation.\nThis report provides an overview of U.S. assistance to and engagement with foreign military and other security forces, focusing on Department of State and DOD roles. It lays out the historical evolution and current framework of the Department of State-DOD shared responsibility. It concludes with a brief overview of salient issues:\nhow to assess effectiveness;\nwhether and how to modify or change the statutory and institutional framework; \nhow to reconcile institutional roles and available resources; \nhow to provide appropriate transparency for oversight.\nThe appendixes provide information on the history of the State-DOD shared responsibility, as well as details of selected State Department and DOD security assistance and cooperation statutes. \nAdditional information on the DOD \u201cBuilding Partner Capacity\u201d programs and activities may be found in CRS Report R44313, What Is \u201cBuilding Partner Capacity?\u201d Issues for Congress, coordinated by Kathleen J. McInnis.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44444", "sha1": "bcd1e792e2df14e5a5462f83d08b5cc2a4562a9b", "filename": "files/20160404_R44444_bcd1e792e2df14e5a5462f83d08b5cc2a4562a9b.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44444", "sha1": "8df071f96bdf11b0d8cf0ef11ffdb7d7625b2bfe", "filename": "files/20160404_R44444_8df071f96bdf11b0d8cf0ef11ffdb7d7625b2bfe.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3153, "name": "Defense Strategy, Military Operations, and Force Structure" } ] } ], "topics": [ "American Law", "Foreign Affairs", "Intelligence and National Security", "National Defense" ] }