{
  "id": "R44602",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44602",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 455296,
      "date": "2016-08-23",
      "retrieved": "2016-09-09T18:37:48.894299",
      "title": "DOD Security Cooperation: An Overview of Authorities and Issues",
      "summary": "Over the past decade, Congress has authorized the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct a wide range of security cooperation programs. As the scope, pace, and cost of activities to train, equip, and otherwise support foreign security forces have increased, however, some policymakers believe that the DOD\u2019s growing authority may undermine the State Department\u2019s lead role in foreign assistance. To others, DOD\u2019s expanded role is a necessary response to the perceived inadequacies of the existing legal regime through which Congress has authorized the State Department and DOD to provide security assistance. \nDOD\u2019s role supporting foreign military and other security forces has evolved over recent decades. Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the White House identified instability in foreign countries as growing threat to U.S. interests and articulated a growing role for the U.S. military in enhancing the ability of foreign forces to control their territories as vital to achieving national security objectives. In response, Congress provided DOD with new authority to combat instability by building partner capacity. \nCongress has provided DOD with, by CRS\u2019s estimate, more than 80 separate authorities to assist foreign governments, militaries, and populations. These authorities cover a wide range of categories, including contingency operations, building partnership capacity, operational support, infrastructure development, counter-drug and counterproliferation activities, humanitarian assistance, military-to-military contacts, education and exchange programs, and defense institution building. \nAs the number of authorities has grown, the resulting statutory framework has become difficult to navigate and implement. Frequently, implementing agencies must draw on multiple authorities, which may lead to program delays and cancelations, staffing problems, sustainment issues, and difficulty achieving efficient interagency coordination. The House and Senate versions of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), now in conference, contain different proposals to address these problems. The House version (H.R. 4909) would consolidate certain existing authorities, while the Senate version (S. 2943) proposes a broad reform of the security cooperation legislative framework.\nThis report provides a general overview of DOD security cooperation authorities. It presents background information on the evolving DOD security cooperation mission and the recent development of the statutory framework through which DOD conducts security cooperation activities. It also discusses salient issues related to the development, implementation, sustainment, and coordination of security cooperation to support congressional oversight. Two tables in the appendix are attached to this report. The first catalogs current security cooperation authorities, noting legislative mandates for State Department input, and notification and reporting requirements. The second provides a snapshot of current authorized and/or appropriated funding levels for select security cooperation authorities. \nAdditional information on related security issues is covered by other CRS products: \nCRS Report R44313, What Is \u201cBuilding Partner Capacity?\u201d Issues for Congress, coordinated by Kathleen J. McInnis. \nCRS Report R44444, Security Assistance and Cooperation: Shared Responsibility of the Departments of State and Defense, by Nina M. Serafino.\nCRS Report R42641, Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview, by Nina M. Serafino.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44602",
          "sha1": "f34ed14e6a20ef2fcfc397a079e3e4476616f4ff",
          "filename": "files/20160823_R44602_f34ed14e6a20ef2fcfc397a079e3e4476616f4ff.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44602",
          "sha1": "e41f79489b9b3f8686a73d6ff65b2dcb9b696ba2",
          "filename": "files/20160823_R44602_e41f79489b9b3f8686a73d6ff65b2dcb9b696ba2.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Crime Policy",
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "Intelligence and National Security",
    "National Defense"
  ]
}