The National Guard State Partnership Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress
Congressional research reportAug 15, 2011
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
The National Guard State Partnership
Program: Background, Issues, and Options for
Congress
name redacted
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
name redacted
Specialist in International Security Affairs
August 15, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R41957
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
The National Guard State Partnership Program
Summary
The State Partnership Program (SPP) is a Department of Defense (DOD) security cooperation
program run by the National Guard. It also serves as a mechanism for training National Guard
personnel. Since the program began in 1992, it has expanded to the point where nearly every state
National Guard participates, as do the National Guard of Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and the District of Columbia.
The SPP relates to several areas of potential interest to Congress, including improving the
capabilities of partner nations to protect their citizens; strengthening relationships with partners to
facilitate cooperation, access, and interoperability; improving cultural awareness and skills among
U.S. military personnel; and fostering the integration of reserve and active component forces into
a “total force.”
In addition, the rapid expansion of the SPP has led to congressional scrutiny of the conformity of
some SPP activities with the law, the effectiveness of the program, and the relationship of SPP
activities to the priorities of U.S. geographic combatant commanders and U.S. ambassadors
abroad. Congressional interest in SPP is also tied to broader concerns that some DOD security
cooperation activities may encroach on, complicate, or conflict with State Department and U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) responsibilities and prerogatives.
The SPP conducts a variety of activities in support of partner nations, including
•
exchanges of subject matter experts,
•
demonstrations of certain military capabilities,
•
discussions of policy issues, and
•
visits between senior leaders of a state National Guard and senior leaders of the
partner nations armed forces.
These interactions commonly focus on topics such as disaster management, command and
control, search and rescue, border operations, military medicine, and military education. In some
of the more developed partnerships, teams of National Guard personnel have embedded with the
military forces of its partner nations as they prepared for and deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, and
Kosovo.
The SPP is based on general statutory authorities used by active and reserve component forces to
conduct security cooperation. Some unique aspects of the SPP include
•
the potential for establishing enduring relationships between individuals in the
state National Guard and their peers in the partner nation’s armed forces;
•
the ability to share specialized expertise about topics such as disaster response,
civil disorder, counter-narcotics operations, and border security; and
•
the ability to link senior officials of a state with senior officials of a foreign
nation, which can open avenues for greater cooperation between the state and the
partner nation in non-military areas.
This report traces the origin and development of the program; summarizes its unique aspects; and
outlines its statutory basis, funding mechanisms, organization, and activities. It details recent
Congressional Research Service
The National Guard State Partnership Program
legislative and executive branch actions. It also explores issues that may merit congressional
attention and provides options for policymakers who may be interested in modifying the program.
Congressional Research Service
The National Guard State Partnership Program
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Origin and Expansion of the State Partnership Program ........................................................... 2
Typical Missions Performed ...................................................................................................... 4
Unique Aspects of the SPP ........................................................................................................ 6
Enduring Relationships ....................................................................................................... 6
Special Capabilities ............................................................................................................. 7
Nations Engaged ................................................................................................................. 8
Relationship with States ...................................................................................................... 8
Statutory Authorities .................................................................................................................. 9
Funding Mechanisms............................................................................................................... 11
Institutional Arrangements ...................................................................................................... 11
Concerns About the SPP .......................................................................................................... 12
Civilian Engagements ....................................................................................................... 12
Integration with Priorities of Combatant Commanders and Ambassadors........................ 13
Encroachment on DOS and USAID Responsibilities ....................................................... 14
Recent Legislative and Executive Branch Activity ................................................................. 14
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 15
Have SPP Activities Been Consistent with Statutory Authority? ............................................ 15
Is SPP Effective? ..................................................................................................................... 16
What Role Should the State Department Play in SPP Administration and Oversight? ........... 17
Should SPP Have a Dedicated Statutory Authority? ............................................................... 18
Should the Contours of the Program Be Modified? ................................................................ 18
Types of Missions Performed ............................................................................................ 18
Scope of U.S. Participation ............................................................................................... 19
Authorized Foreign Participants........................................................................................ 19
Options for Congress ..................................................................................................................... 20
Monitor Implementation of the Directive Type Memorandum ............................................... 20
Direct Periodic Evaluations ..................................................................................................... 20
Require Centralized Approval of SPP Activities ..................................................................... 20
Codify the State Partnership Program in Law ......................................................................... 20
Authorized Activities and Participants .............................................................................. 21
Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................... 21
Role of the State Department ............................................................................................ 21
Figures
Figure 1. State Partnership Program Goals, FY2008-FY2013 ........................................................ 2
Figure 2. Number of Partnerships in each Combatant Command ................................................... 4
Figure A-1. Map of State Partnerships as of July 2011.................................................................. 24
Congressional Research Service
The National Guard State Partnership Program
Tables
Table A-1. List of State Partnerships as of July 2011 .................................................................... 23
Table B-1. Title 10 and NDAA Authorities Used by the SPP ........................................................ 25
Appendixes
Appendix A. State Partnerships: Table and World Map................................................................. 23
Appendix B. Title 10 and National Defense Authorization Act Authorities That May Be
Used by the SPP ......................................................................................................................... 25
Appendix C. State Partnerships and Title 22 Authorities............................................................... 27
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 28
Congressional Research Service
The National Guard State Partnership Program
Introduction
The State Partnership Program (SPP) is a Department of Defense (DOD) security cooperation
program run by the National Guard. It also serves as a mechanism for training National Guard
personnel. The current goals of the program are listed in Figure 1.1 The SPP relates to several
areas of potential interest to Congress, including improving the capabilities of partner nations to
protect their citizens; strengthening relationships with partners to facilitate cooperation, access,
and interoperability; improving cultural awareness and skills among U.S. military personnel; and
fostering the integration of reserve and active component forces into a “total force.”
The SPP evolved from an effort begun in 1992 to use professional contacts between the U.S.
military and the militaries of the newly independent nations of the former Soviet Union to help
reform the defense establishments of those nations. The program has expanded greatly since then.
Today, it is a significant component of DOD’s security cooperation efforts, linking state and
territorial National Guards in 63 partnerships with 70 partners nations (listed in Appendix A).2
Nearly every state National Guard participates in the SPP, as do the National Guard of Guam,
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia.3
The SPP’s rapid expansion has led to
congressional scrutiny of
•
the conformity of some SPP
activities with the law,
•
the effectiveness of the program,
and
•
the relationship of SPP activities to
the priorities of U.S. geographic
combatant commanders and U.S.
ambassadors abroad.
Security Cooperation
Security cooperation is a broad term, defined by DOD as
those interactions between DOD and foreign defense
establishments, which
•
build defense relationships that promote specific U.S.
security interests,
•
develop allied and friendly military capabilities for selfdefense and multinational operations, and
•
provide U.S. forces with peacetime and contingency
4
access to a host nation.
The U.S. military conducts a wide variety of security
cooperation activities, including security assistance, counterdrug support, “train and equip” assistance, exercises with
foreign countries, fellowships, educational exchanges,
humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and military-tomilitary contact programs.
Congressional interest in SPP is also tied to
broader concerns that some DOD security
cooperation activities may encroach on,
complicate, or conflict with State
Department and U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) responsibilities and prerogatives.
1
The National Guard Bureau is in the process of developing new goals, tentatively scheduled to take effect in FY2012,
to align with the May 2010 National Security Strategy.
2
There are 63 partnerships with 70 foreign countries due to the partnership between the National Guards of Florida and
the U.S. Virgin Islands National Guard with the Regional Security System (RSS), a collective security agreement for
seven island nations in the Eastern Caribbean. The seven nations that participate in the RSS are Antigua and Barbuda,
Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
3
For a list of all current partnerships, see Appendix A. At present, South Carolina and Nevada do not have
partnerships, although they both had one previously (South Carolina and Albania; Nevada and Turkmenistan).
Additionally, South Carolina currently participates in the Utah-Morocco partnership.
4
Adapted from Department of Defense, Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and
Associated Terms, Washington, DC, as amended through April 2010, available at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/
dod_dictionary/.
Congressional Research Service
1
The National Guard State Partnership Program
As previous published research on the program is limited, this report relies heavily on interviews
with individuals at DOD, the National Guard Bureau (NGB), and the Department of State (DOS)
who are involved with the program.
Figure 1. State Partnership Program Goals, FY2008-FY2013
Background
Origin and Expansion of the State Partnership Program5
As the Soviet Union disintegrated between 1989 and 1991, U.S. government officials explored
options to minimize instability and encourage democratic governments in the former Soviet bloc
nations. One effort to address these policy goals was to expand military-to-military contacts with
the newly independent states of Central and Eastern Europe to promote subordination to civilian
leadership, respect for human rights, and a defensively oriented military posture. At the time,
most of these newly independent states had militaries that were based on the Soviet model and
focused on countering threats from NATO nations. The United States European Command
(USEUCOM) took the lead in this effort by establishing the Joint Contact Team Program (JCTP)
in 1992. The JCTP was originally composed of active component personnel and included
members of the special forces because of their language skills. However, when the JCTP began to
engage the Baltic nations of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, senior defense officials insisted that
National Guard and Reserve personnel play a leading role in any military liaison teams operating
5
The first two paragraphs of this section rely heavily on the work of Robert T. Cossaboom, The Joint Contact Team
Program: Contacts with the Former Soviet Republics and Warsaw Pact Nations, 1992-1994 (Washington, DC: Joint
History Office, Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1997).
Congressional Research Service
2
The National Guard State Partnership Program
in those countries, apparently in response to those governments’ desire to establish reserve-centric
defense establishments and to assuage Russian concerns about U.S. expansion into its former
satellites.
In November 1992, Lieutenant General John Conway, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau,
and Brigadier General Thomas Lennon, head of the JCTP, visited the Baltics. A few months after
their trip, in early 1993, the National Guard initiated the first state partnerships: New YorkEstonia, Michigan-Latvia, and Pennsylvania-Lithuania. Additional partnerships were proposed
later in 1993 for Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Romania,
Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine. The SPP benefited the JCTP by providing additional
personnel, funding, and access to military personnel from U.S. ethnic-heritage communities who
often had relevant language and cultural skills.
Today, USEUCOM has 22 state partnerships. The SPP has also expanded beyond USEUCOM to
other combatant commands (COCOMs) as shown in Figure 2.
•
United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) established its first partnership
in 1995, between Arizona and Kazakhstan, and now has five partnerships.
•
United States Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) established four
partnerships in 1996–Missouri-Panama, Louisiana-Belize, Kentucky-Ecuador,
and West Virginia-Peru –and today has 21 partnerships.
•
United States Pacific Command (USPACOM) established a partnership with two
states–Guam and Hawaii–and the Philippines in 2000. It currently has six
partnerships.
•
United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM) established its first partnership,
New York-South Africa, in 2003, while much of Africa was still part of
USEUCOM. It currently has eight partnerships.
•
United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) has one partnership, Rhode
Island-Bahamas. It was established in 2005, when the Bahamas was within the
USSOUTHCOM area of responsibility.
See Appendix A for a full list of current state partnerships.
Congressional Research Service
3
The National Guard State Partnership Program
Figure 2. Number of Partnerships in each Combatant Command
July 2011
Source: Congressional Research Service graphic based on data provided by the National Guard Bureau.
Typical Missions Performed
The SPP conducts a variety of activities in support of partner nations. A list of some common
types of partnership activities are provided below, along with a brief summary and an illustrative
example. According to NGB, the typical SPP event is a week-long subject matter expert
exchange, with three to five National Guard subject matter experts participating, with an average
cost of approximately $20,000.
•
Subject Matter Expert Exchanges. During these events, National Guard
personnel with expertise in a certain area share their knowledge with partner
nation personnel. For example, in 2005
[t]he Uruguayan Army’s Infantry and Engineer units in Montevideo and Maldonado hosted
the visit of U.S. Army National Guardsmen from Connecticut. During the [subject matter
expert exchange], delegates visited Uruguayan Army units and discussed a wide range of
topics to include peacekeeping and humanitarian de-mining operations, infantry and engineer
training, as well as soldier and officer training at unit level.6
•
Familiarizations. These are demonstrations of certain capabilities that the Army
or Air National Guard has, or discussions of policy issues related to those
capabilities. For example,
6
Announcement by National Guard Bureau of International Affairs (J5-IA), “Delegates visited Uruguayan Army units
and discussed a wide range of topics,” available at http://www.ng.mil/ia_backup/states/states/ct_uruguay.htm.
Congressional Research Service
4
The National Guard State Partnership Program
in the late 1990s, the Pennsylvania National Guard was instrumental in assisting Lithuania
with the development of their Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) Academy, which was
modeled after the U.S. NCO Education System. A total of 26 Lithuanian officers participated
in five train-the-trainer familiarization visits to Pennsylvania, with the focus on curriculum
development for NCO course preparation at the newly created Lithuanian NCO Academy in
Kaunas. These officers became acquainted with a diversity of topics such as medical
specialist instructor course development; field artillery NCO course development;
leadership; training management; democratic civil-military relations; NCO development;
interoperability; and emergency operations.7
•
Senior Leader Visits. These are visits between senior leaders of the state
National Guard, such as the adjutant general, and senior leaders of the partner
nation’s armed forces. For example,
[i]n May 2001, the Georgia Guard had the honor of hosting 12 representatives from the
Republic of Georgia along with representatives from the United States Department of State,
[the] Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff and others for the Bilateral Working
Group in Savannah, Georgia. The high-level discussions focused on Defense Reform, the
Georgia Guard State Partnership Program, the Georgia Border Security Program, and the
Helicopter Program. Participants were also able to observe a B-1B bombing demonstration at
Hunter Army Airfield and activities at the Georgia Air National Guard Combat Readiness
Training Center.8
•
Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams. Operational Mentor and Liaison
Teams (OMLTs) provide mentoring and training for the Afghan National Army
(ANA) and serve as liaisons between the ANA and the International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. They are composed of 13-30 personnel
from one or more countries. 9 National Guard personnel have embedded with
their partner nation’s OMLTs and accompanied them throughout their
deployments to Afghanistan (they have also conducted similar embedded
operations with partner nation forces in Iraq and Kosovo). One such deployment
from 2010 is described as follows:
Eleven Colorado Army National Guard Soldiers will pair up with 90 Slovenian soldiers and
deploy to Afghanistan this October to form an Operational Mentor and Liaison Team. Their
combined mission will be to train and mentor an Afghan National Army infantry battalion,
better empowering it in the use of infantry maneuvers and tactics, so the ANA can ultimately
take control of its military operations ... The [Colorado National Guard] and the Republic of
Slovenia have become strong allies over their 17-year collaboration through the National
Guard’s State Partnership Program.10
7
Announcement by National Guard Bureau of International Affairs (J5-IA), “Pennsylvania National Guard State
Partnership Program in the Republic of Lithuania,” available at http://www.ng.mil/ia_backup/states/states/
pa_lithuania%5B1%5D.htm.
8
Announcement by National Guard Bureau of International Affairs (J5-IA), “Georgia National Guard State Partnership
Program in the Republic of Georgia,” available at http://www.ng.mil/ia_backup/states/states/ga_georgia.htm.
9
NATO Headquarters, Fact Sheet: NATO’s Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams, June 2010, available at
http://www.isaf.nato.int/images/stories/File/factsheets-june/June%202010-Fact%20Sheet%20OMLT.pdf.
10
Bethany Fehringer, Colorado Guard Soldiers Train, Deploy with Slovenians, September 7, 2010, available at
http://co.ng.mil/News/Pages/100930_OMLT.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
5
The National Guard State Partnership Program
The focus of SPP activities varies depending on the needs of the partner nation, the capabilities of
the state National Guard, the goals of the respective U.S. ambassador and the combatant
commander, and statutory authorities and restrictions. Some common focus areas are
•
disaster management and disaster relief activities,
•
military education,
•
non-commissioned officer development,
•
command and control,
•
search and rescue,
•
border operations,
•
military medicine,
•
port security, and
•
military justice.
Unique Aspects of the SPP
The SPP is based upon a variety of statutory authorities (detailed in the section entitled “Statutory
Authorities”). None of these authorities are specific to the SPP. They are authorities used
generally by active and reserve component forces to conduct security cooperation activities.
Accordingly, the SPP shares many similarities with other security cooperation activities carried
out by the military. However, there are at least four factors that make the SPP unique.
Enduring Relationships
One unique aspect of the SPP is the ability to forge relationships between particular individuals
over a long period of time. For active component personnel, a duty assignment that includes
regular contact with the military of a foreign nation would typically last for about two to three
years. At the end of the tour of duty, the U.S. servicemember would normally be reassigned as
part of his or her career progression. In contrast, National Guard personnel participating in the
SPP may well participate in engagements with partner nation military personnel repeatedly
throughout their career. This is due to both the duration of the state National Guard and foreign
nation partnership—some of which have been in existence for nearly two decades—and the
frequency with which National Guard personnel serve their entire reserve careers within one state
National Guard. Thus, for example, individuals who joined the Michigan National Guard in 1993
and continued to serve to the present would have had the opportunity to participate in SPP
activities with Latvia numerous times over the past 18 years. In that time, both the Guard
personnel and the foreign military personnel with whom they engaged will have been promoted to
higher ranks, potentially providing for strong relationships between the now fairly senior National
Guard and foreign military personnel. The ability to develop such long-term relationships are rare
for active component personnel because of career assignment policies. An additional benefit of an
enduring relationship is that it provides National Guard personnel with the opportunity to develop
Congressional Research Service
6
The National Guard State Partnership Program
cultural knowledge, and potentially even language skills, based on their recurring contacts with
the partner nation.11
Special Capabilities
Another aspect of the SPP that distinguishes it from similar engagements by active component
forces stems from the National Guard’s dual status as both a state and a federal organization. In
its federal status, the National Guard is a reserve component of the Army and the Air Force and is
trained, organized, and equipped to conduct a wide spectrum of military activities. However, the
National Guard is also the organized militia of each state and in that capacity it routinely operates
under the control of its state governor, typically to respond to disasters and civil disorders.12
National Guard personnel in a “Title 32 status”13 have also conducted counterdrug, border
security, and airport security missions. The practical expertise the National Guard has acquired in
these areas may be complemented by the skills that National Guard personnel develop in their
civilian occupations. For example, a National Guard soldier may serve as an infantryman in his
Guard unit, but may be a state trooper, paramedic, or emergency dispatcher in his civilian job.14
The expertise that National Guard units have acquired in conducting these types of operations are
often in demand among foreign militaries, which frequently play a major role in their nation’s
disaster response plans, and which may play significant roles in their nation’s border security,
civil disorder, or counterdrug operations. Although active component forces have significant
expertise in these areas—as evidenced, for example, by the role played by active component
personnel in responding to the earthquake in Haiti and the floods in Pakistan in 2010—it is
typically not exercised with the frequency of National Guard forces and, in certain cases, is
intentionally limited by law.15
11
Language, regional and cultural skills were identified as “critical enablers” in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review,
which favorably noted a number of departmental initiatives to improve these skills. See Department of Defense,
Quadrennial Defense Review Report, Washington , DC, February 2010, pp. 18, 25, 29, 54, and 75,
http://www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf. Congress has also expressed interest in language,
regional and cultural skills as evidenced by several provisions in recent National Defense Authorization Acts.
12
Unlike the Reserves, which are exclusively federal organizations, the National Guard is usually both a state and a
federal organization. The National Guard of the United States is made up of 54 separate National Guard organizations:
one for each state and one each for Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. While the
District of Columbia National Guard is an exclusively federal organization and operates under federal control at all
times, the other 53 National Guards operate as state or territorial organizations most of the time. In this capacity, each
of these 53 organizations is identified by its state or territorial name (e.g., the California National Guard or the Puerto
Rico National Guard) and is controlled by its respective governor.
13
“Title 32 status” refers to the part of the U.S. Code that governs this duty status. National Guard personnel in Title 32
status operate under state control but with pay and benefits provided by the federal government. Typical duties
performed in this status include inactive duty for training (“weekend drill”) and annual training (AT) within the United
States, but may also include other duties under 32 USC 502(f). This is the provision of law that was used to provide
federal pay and benefits to the Guard personnel called up to provide security at many of the nation’s airports in the
aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to respond to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, and to
assist with security on the southwest border in 2006-2008 and 2010-2011.
14
More broadly, National Guard personnel may have civilian skills outside of the “security sector” that can be of value
to partner nations. For example, they may have expertise in agriculture, health care, education, public utilities, and
logistics.
15
Most notably, the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385), along with other related laws and administrative provisions,
prohibits the use of the military to execute civilian laws unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of
Congress. Active component forces are covered by these provisions. However, when acting in its capacity as the
organized militia of a state, the National Guard is not part of the federal military and thus is not covered by the Posse
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
The National Guard State Partnership Program
Nations Engaged
There is a limited supply of U.S. forces available to conduct security cooperation activities with
foreign nations. Thus, combatant commanders target security cooperation activities toward
foreign nations that they deem most important to engage at a given time. Some nations do not
“compete well” in this process and are passed over for security cooperation activities. Combatant
commanders target SPP activities toward their engagement priorities as well, but so long as a
partnership exists a baseline level of roughly three SPP events per year are conducted even if the
foreign nation is considered to be a comparatively low priority for engagement. From one
perspective, this may be considered a long-term investment in nations that, while not currently
priorities for engagement, may well become so in the future. From another perspective, this can
be interpreted as a misallocation of limited resources; the National Guard assets might be better
used engaging with higher priority nations.
Relationship with States
A final area in which the SPP differs from active component security cooperation activities lies in
the role of individual states in the relationship. Active component security cooperation activities
are purely federal in nature; there is no connection with any U.S. state. SPP activities have both a
federal and a state connection, and this latter relationship can be important from several
perspectives. For the state and the foreign nation, the SPP provides a link between senior state
and foreign nation officials. The adjutant general (the head of a state National Guard) is typically
a senior official in his or her state government, normally heading up the state department of
military affairs, and sometimes leading the state department of emergency management or
homeland security.16 This can provide a conduit for the state and the foreign nation to develop
relationships beyond that with the state National Guard—for example, enhancing economic ties
or conducting educational exchanges. From the federal perspective, a strong relationship between
a state and a foreign nation could potentially contribute to a stronger relationship between the
United States and the foreign nation.17 On the other hand, conflicts of interest could conceivably
develop between the state and the United States in their relationships with the partner nation.18
(...continued)
Comitatus Act. Only when it is called into federal service does the National Guard become subject to the act. As such,
the National Guard can be used by state authorities to enforce the law. For example, while acting in a state controlled
capacity, the National Guard has been used for riot control, counter-drug activities, and airport security.
16
For an overview of the roles played by adjutants general in the various states and territories, see Library of Congress
Federal Research Division, A Guide to Directors of Homeland Security, Emergency Management, and Military
Departments in the States and Territories of the United States, Washington, DC, December 2007, http://www.loc.gov/
rr/frd/pdf-files/CNGR_Guide-State-Directors-Rev.pdf.
17
For example, a strong state partnership could generate greater economic ties between the United States and the
foreign nation and instill an appreciation of American values among the citizens and leaders of the foreign nation.
18
A hypothetical example: Country A and Country B are competitors, and the United States desires to maintain
favorable relations with both of them. The governor of the state partnered with Country A is enthusiastic about building
economic and cultural ties and launches various initiatives to that effect, while the governor of the state partnered with
Country B does not consider the relationship particularly important. The leadership of Country B may resent the
stronger partnership that County A has, and express this resentment in its dealings with the United States government.
Congressional Research Service
8
The National Guard State Partnership Program
Statutory Authorities
The SPP has no dedicated statutory authority; rather, SPP activities are currently carried out under
one or more Title 10 (Armed Forces), Title 32 (National Guard) and National Defense
Authorization Act authorities that are related to the types of missions conducted. The main
authorities that may be used by SPP are discussed below and summarized in Appendix B. There
are circumstances in which a state National Guard may operate under Title 22 (Foreign Relations
and Intercourse) authorities in support of their partner nation, but these activities are not
considered to be “SPP events” by NGB.19 For a fuller discussion of such Title 22 activities, see
Appendix C.
One authority under which SPP activities may be carried out is 10 U.S.C. 168. It provides
authority for the Secretary of Defense to fund military-to-military contacts “that are designed to
encourage a democratic orientation of defense establishments and military forces of other
countries.” Under 10 U.S.C. 168, the Secretary may provide funds for nine specific purposes: (1)
the activities of traveling contact teams, including transportation, translation services, or
administrative expenses; (2) the activities of military liaison teams; (3) exchanges of civilian or
military personnel between DOD and defense ministries of foreign governments; (4) exchanges
of military personnel between units of the armed forces and units of foreign armed forces; (5)
seminars and conferences held primarily in a theater of operations; (6) distribution of publications
primarily in a theater of operations; (7) personnel expenses for DOD civilian and military
personnel to the extent that these expenses relate to participation in an activity described at (3),
(4), (5), or (6) above; (8) reimbursement of military personnel appropriations accounts for the pay
and allowances paid to reserve component personnel for service while engaged in any of these
activities; and (9) the assignment of personnel described in (3) and (4) can be made on a nonreciprocal basis if the Secretary of Defense considers such an assignment in the interest of the
United States.
SPP activities may also use other authorities, including
•
10 U.S.C. 1051 (Bilateral or Regional Cooperation Programs). This provision
authorizes the Secretary of Defense to pay the travel, subsistence, and similar
personal expenses of defense personnel of developing countries in connection
with their attendance at a bilateral or regional conference, seminar, or similar
meeting, with certain restrictions. An amendment in 2002 specifically extended
this authority to NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) country personnel traveling to
other PfP countries. Section 1051 requires that the Secretary of Defense
determine whether payment of authorized expenses is in the interest of U.S.
national security.
•
10 U.S.C. 1050 (Latin American Cooperation). Section 1050 is similar to
Section 1051, but specifically applies to the travel, subsistence, and special
compensation of officers and students of Latin American countries and other
expenses that the Secretary considers necessary for Latin American cooperation.
19
According to NGB representatives, SPP events only occur under Title 10, Title 32 and National Defense
Authorization Act authorities; any activity carried out by a state National Guard and its partner nation under a Title 22
authority is, by definition, not an SPP event.
Congressional Research Service
9
The National Guard State Partnership Program
•
10 USC 1050a (African Cooperation). Section 1050a is nearly identical to
Section 1050, except that it applies to officers and students of African nations.
•
10 U.S.C. 2010 (Combined Exercises). This provision authorizes the Secretary
of Defense, after consultation with the Secretary of State, to pay incremental
expenses incurred by a developing country as a direct result of participation in
bilateral or multilateral military exercises. It requires that the exercises be
undertaken primarily to enhance the security interests of the United States and
that the Secretary of Defense determine whether a country’s participation is
necessary to achieve the fundamental objectives of the exercise.
Another set of authorities revolve around humanitarian and civic assistance. Of the Overseas
Humanitarian, Disaster Assistance, and Civic Assistance (OHDACA) programs, officials
interviewed by CRS specifically mentioned 10 U.S.C. 401 and 2561.
•
10 U.S.C. 401 (Humanitarian and Civic Assistance). This provision authorizes
DOD to carry out humanitarian and civic assistance activities in host nations in
conjunction with military operations, if the activities promote the security
interests of both nations and benefit the operational readiness skills of
participating armed forces personnel. Humanitarian and civic assistance is
defined to include medical, surgical, dental, and veterinary care in rural and
underserved communities, rudimentary construction and repair of public
buildings, well drilling, and construction of sanitary facilities and rudimentary
surface transportation systems.
•
10 U.S.C. 2561 (Humanitarian Assistance). This provision authorizes the
expenditure of humanitarian assistance funds for the transportation of
humanitarian relief and other humanitarian purposes.
Other humanitarian assistance authorities may also be used, however, including 10 U.S.C. 402,
404, and 2557 (see Appendix B for a brief description of each).
Several other security cooperation authorities have also been used in conjunction with SPP
activities according to those interviewed by CRS. One is 10 U.S.C. 2249c, the Regional Defense
Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program (CTFP), which authorizes the use of funds to pay the
costs associated with the attendance of foreign military officers, ministry of defense officials, or
security officials at U.S. military educational institutions, regional centers, conferences, seminars,
and at civilian venues, or other training programs conducted under the CTFP. Another is the
“Section 1206” building partnership capacity funding authority established by Section 1206 of the
FY2006 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 109-163, as extended and amended).20 A third
is the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which funds expenses related to preventing
weapons proliferation and other activities.21
20
Section 1206 authority has been used to train and equip foreign units deploying to Afghanistan, including
deployments where National Guard personnel accompany their partner nation forces. See the discussion of Operational
Mentor and Liaison Teams under “Typical Missions Performed”.
21
The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is authorized through several pieces of legislation, including an
amendment to implementing legislation for the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty (P.L. 102-228)
establishing the Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 1991, Title XIV of the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY1993 (P.L. 102-484), and Title XII of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1993 (P.L. 103-160).
Congressional Research Service
10
The National Guard State Partnership Program
For SPP events conducted overseas, National Guard members are typically placed in a duty status
by orders issued under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 12301. For SPP events conducted within the
United States, National Guard members are placed in a duty status by order issued under 32
U.S.C. 502. This permits the participating members to receive appropriate military pay and
benefits.
Funding Mechanisms
Current funding for SPP activities includes the pay and allowances for the National Guard
participants, which are normally funded by the Army and Air National Guard Personnel accounts
of DOD appropriations. However, those who serve overseas full-time in support of the program
(see “Institutional Arrangements” section) have their pay and allowances covered by the active
component Army or Air Force Personnel account. Other significant costs for SPP are travelrelated expenses, such as transportation, lodging, and meals. These expenses may be incurred by
National Guard personnel or foreign military personnel participating in an SPP event. Such
travel-related expenses are typically paid for out of one of the Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) accounts, although some of the travel expenses for National Guard personnel may be paid
out of Personnel accounts. This O&M funding has historically flowed to SPP through a number
of programs and activities:
•
Traditional Combatant Commander’s Activities (TCA)
•
National Guard Bureau’s International Affairs Division
•
Combatant Commander’s Initiative Fund (CCIF)
•
Warsaw Initiative Fund/Partnership for Peace (WIF/PfP)
•
Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program (CFTP)
•
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (CTR)
•
Asia-Pacific Regional Initiative Fund (APRI)
•
Latin American Cooperation (LATAM COOP)
•
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Assistance (OHDCA)
•
Minuteman Fellowship (MMF; no longer in existence)
Institutional Arrangements
Much of the management of SPP activities is handled by SPP coordinators assigned to each
state’s National Guard headquarters, and by military officers assigned full-time to the U.S.
embassy accredited to the partner nation—normally from the state National Guard involved in the
partnership—whose duty description includes coordinating SPP and often other DOD security
cooperation activities. The COCOMs manage this latter group, providing for their pay and
performance evaluations. These officers serve in a Title 10 status, typically hold the rank of
Captain through Lieutenant Colonel, but have different titles and tours of duty depending on the
COCOM to which they are assigned. For example, officers serving in embassies within the
USEUCOM area of responsibility are known as Bilateral Affairs Officers (BAOs) and serve twoyear tours, which can be extended. Those in the USSOUTHCOM area of responsibility are
known as Traditional Commander’s Activities coordinators (TCAs) and are usually on six-month
Congressional Research Service
11
The National Guard State Partnership Program
temporary duty assignments, which can be extended. In nations without a BAO, TCA, or similar
officer, the state’s SPP coordinator travels to the partner nation to coordinate SPP activities. The
National Guard Bureau would prefer to have a BAO, TCA, or similar officer stationed at the U.S.
embassy for each of the 63 partnerships, and it is currently working on a plan to fund this.
According to NGB representatives interviewed for this report, the U.S. ambassador to a given
country must approve the establishment of a state partnership with that nation, as well as all SPP
activities conducted therein. The process normally requires approval by the ambassador,
combatant commander, and the state National Guard before activities are conducted.22 If NGB
funds are used for an activity, the NGB must also approve the activity. In a “model” flow scheme,
proposed activities are (1) developed by the BAO, TCA, or SPP coordinator with the partner
countries; (2) discussed with and approved by the home state National Guard; (3) presented to the
ambassador for approval; and (4) presented to the combatant commander for final approval.
However, the actual process for coordinating SPP activities varies by country and COCOM.
Concerns About the SPP
Three broad concerns about the SPP have arisen. First, some past SPP events have included
funding for engagements involving U.S. civilians and foreign civilians when such funding
appears to have been beyond the scope of the law. Second, some allege that SPP activities have
not always been effectively linked to the priorities of the combatant commander and the U.S.
ambassador. Third, at a more general level, some are concerned that DOD security cooperation
activities, including SPP events, extend the influence of the U.S. military too far into the domain
of the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development, resulting in a
“militarization of foreign policy.” Each of these concerns is discussed below.
Civilian Engagements
The SPP relies on a wide variety of statutory authorities to conduct its activities. Some of these
authorities are more permissive than others in terms of civilian engagement. For example, 10
U.S.C. 401 authorizes U.S. military personnel to provide “humanitarian and civic assistance” in
certain circumstances. Coordinating such assistance might require engagement with civilian
officials from the partner nation’s health, public safety, or transportation ministries. On the other
hand, 10 U.S.C. 168 is targeted toward “military-to- military contacts and comparable activities”
and most of the authorized activities under this provision involve U.S. or foreign military
personnel only. Funding for exchanges with foreign civilian personnel are authorized, but only if
they are part of the defense ministry of a foreign government.23
Concerns have been raised that certain past SPP events may have funded U.S. or foreign civilian
participation when such funding was outside the scope of the statutes involved.24 Such concerns
22
Section 1210 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010, discussed later, prohibited funds from being
expended for SPP activities in foreign countries unless the activities were jointly approved by the combatant
commander and the chief of mission. Prior to this, such joint approval appears to have been part of the normal
procedure for SPP events, although it is unclear whether this procedure was followed in all cases.
23
See 10 U.S.C. 168(c)(3).
24
Some National Guard representatives have cited appropriations report language related to the State Partnership
Program as congressional authority to conduct military-to-civilian and civilian-to-civilian engagements. CRS was able
to find one instance of this type of language in a House Appropriations Committee report, although there may be
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12
The National Guard State Partnership Program
appear to be the genesis of the statutory language in the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for FY2010 to require regulations on the use of funds for SPP activities and to mandate
reports on “civilian engagement activities” conducted under SPP (see “Recent Legislative and
Executive Branch Activity”). While DOD has not yet submitted the required reports to Congress
on civilian engagement activities, it appears that during 2009 and 2010, the SPP spent slightly
more than $1 million per year on costs associated with U.S. and foreign civilians participating in
SPP events, although it is unclear what proportion of these civilian engagements, if any, were not
in compliance with statutory requirements.25 According to some DOD representatives, combatant
commanders have recently been told to carefully examine programs to ensure that any foreign
civilians participating in SPP activities are there at the request of the partner country’s Ministry of
Defense (MOD) and contribute to the MOD’s ability to carry out its assigned mission. The NGB
has stressed that the SPP no longer funds purely non-defense related civilian engagements, but
simply acts as a sort of “clearing house” for information between interested civilian parties from
the state and partner nation.
Integration with Priorities of Combatant Commanders and Ambassadors
A second concern about the SPP is that its activities in certain countries have not been well
coordinated with the combatant command and the U.S. embassy, and as a result the activities
have not always been effectively linked with the priorities of the combatant commander or the
ambassador. It is difficult to assess the validity of this criticism with the limited data available.
However, if accurate, these comments might indicate the need for more robust and standardized
event coordination procedures to ensure that the priorities of the combatant commander and the
ambassador are incorporated throughout the SPP activity planning process. In the past few years,
the NGB has implemented procedures to address this concern for all of the SPP activities that it
funds, but this does not necessarily apply to SPP activities funded in other ways.26
Statute now prohibits funds from being expended for SPP activities in foreign countries unless the
activities are jointly approved by the combatant commander and the chief of mission for the U.S.
(...continued)
additional references elsewhere. H.Rept. 106-244, the report of the House Committee on Appropriations to accompany
H.R. 2561, the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2000, July 20, 1999, page 111 states:
The Committee recommends $1,000,000 only for the National Guard’s State Partnership Program.
The Committee directs that these funds be used to support theater engagement opportunities for
National Guard soldiers and state civilian personnel who directly support the State Partnership
Program and civil-military engagement goals and for the National Guard Minuteman Fellows
Program which the Committee has supported in the past.
The $1,000,000 funding recommendation was included in the final conference report, but the accompanying language
regarding civil-military engagements was not.
25
As noted in “Statutory Authorities” and Appendix B, certain types of civilian engagements may be authorized,
depending on the authority invoked.
26
Since 2008, all requests for funding from NGB have required that the event “be approved by the Embassy and
COCOM”. Starting in FY2011, all requests for funding from NGB have had to include documentation that the SPP
activities “clearly serve to support the U.S. Chief of Mission (COM) and GCC’s [Geographic Combatant
Commander’s] theater and country security objectives.” However, the NGB does not fund all SPP events; those funded
from other sources, such as the Combatant Commands, are not governed by this policy, although the funding source
may be have a similar policy in place. See National Guard Bureau, National Guard Security Cooperation and State
Partnership Program Guide: Part II, Program Management, January 1, 2008, p. 30 and National Guard Bureau,
International Affairs Division, Memorandum for National Guard State Partnership Program Coordinators, Fiscal Year
2011 State Partnership Program Funding Guidance, October 29, 2010, paragraph 4(a)(4).
Congressional Research Service
13
The National Guard State Partnership Program
embassy (see “Recent Legislative and Executive Branch Activity”).27 This is designed to ensure
that all future SPP activities are fully coordinated with the combatant command and the U.S.
embassy. However, the degree to which this requirement aligns SPP activities with combatant
commanders’ and ambassadors’ priorities will depend on how it is implemented in each country.
Events with a limited connection to these priorities could potentially be approved, simply because
the National Guard is able to conduct the event and the partner nation wants to participate.
Encroachment on DOS and USAID Responsibilities
Some SPP activities are conducted in conjunction with authorities that are the subject of a broader
concern about the “militarization” of U.S. foreign assistance.28 These include, in particular, the
“Section 1206” global train and equip authority (P.L. 109-163) and 10 U.S.C. 401 humanitarian
and civic assistance authority. For several years, some policymakers and experts have criticized
Section 1206 as a prominent example of the expansion of DOD authorities to train and educate
foreign military forces. (For the past 50 years, programs to train, equip, and educate foreign
military forces have generally been conducted under State Department authority). In addition,
DOD’s use of humanitarian and civic assistance exercises has been criticized as at times
inconsistent with or detrimental to long-term development goals in the countries where they are
carried out. In many cases these experts argue, such activities should be conducted by military
personnel under the aegis and funding of the State Department or USAID. The use of the National
Guard for these activities may add further dimensions to the militarization debate. Deployed
abroad, National Guard personnel are equivalent to other U.S. military personnel under U.S. law,
but they may also bring to bear a civilian’s skills, experiences, and sensibilities that may alleviate
some concerns when and if drawn upon for missions abroad.
Recent Legislative and Executive Branch Activity
The Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010 contained a provision
(Section 1212) addressing the availability of appropriated funds for the SPP. This provision
permitted the Secretary of Defense to use funds appropriated to DOD in FY2010 to pay the costs
incurred by the National Guard in conducting SPP activities to “(1) support the objectives of the
commander of the combatant command for the theater of operations in which such activities are
conducted” or “(2) to build international civil-military partnerships and capacity on matters
relating to defense and security.” The provision also prohibited funds to be expended for activities
in foreign countries unless the activities were jointly approved by the combatant commander and
the chief of mission for the U.S. embassy. Finally, it allowed members of other federal agencies to
participate in SPP activities, with their agencies reimbursing DOD for the cost associated with
their participation.29
27
P.L. 111-84, Section 1210, October 28, 2009, National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010.
For more on concerns over the militarization of U.S. foreign assistance, see CRS Report RL34639, The Department
of Defense Role in Foreign Assistance: Background, Major Issues, and Options for Congress, coordinated by (name re
dacted), and CRS Report RS22855, Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for
Congress, by (name redacted).
29
S. 1390.
28
Congressional Research Service
14
The National Guard State Partnership Program
The House version of the FY2010 NDAA had no similar provision.30 The conferees agreed to
revised language (Section 1210) to require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, to prescribe regulations regarding the use of funds appropriated to DOD to pay
for costs incurred by the National Guard in conducting activities under the SPP. It did not specify
what types of activities were authorized as the Senate provision had. It included the prohibition
on funds being expended for SPP activities in foreign countries unless the activities were jointly
approved by the combatant commander and the chief of mission, but dropped the language
concerning participation and reimbursement of expenses by personnel from other federal
agencies. It also added a requirement that the Secretary of Defense submit a report to the Armed
Services and Foreign Affairs Committees in the House and Senate describing “the civilian
engagement activities conducted under the State Partnership Program, including a detailed
description of the activities undertaken and funds expended in the previous fiscal year under the
State Partnership Program.”31
In response to the FY2010 NDAA requirement that the Secretary of Defense prescribe regulations
regarding the use of funds for SPP activities, DOD has drafted a Directive Type Memorandum
(DTM) which is in the final stages of approval. In the interim, the NGB sent out a planning
guidance memorandum in October 2010, which addressed the appropriate types and objectives of
SPP events that use NGB funding. Among other things, this guidance requires that “[t]he event
must be designed and executed such that the MoD of the PN [partner nation] is the focal point of
SPP interaction,” “[t]he event objective(s) must clearly serve to support the U.S. Chief of Mission
(CoM) and GCC’s [Geographic Combatant Commander’s] theater and country security
objectives,” and “the event must be approved by the appropriate GCC and the U.S. CoM of the
affected PN.”32
The FY2010 NDAA also mandated that DOD provide certain congressional committees with a
series of reports “describing the civilian engagement activities conducted under the State
Partnership Program.” The first of these reports was due January 26, 2010, with additional reports
on the topic due at the end of FY2010 through FY2013. As of this writing, neither the initial
report nor the FY2010 report had been submitted to Congress as required. However, it appears
that during 2009 and 2010, the SPP spent slightly more than $1 million per year on costs
associated with U.S. and foreign civilians participating in SPP events.
Issues for Congress
Have SPP Activities Been Consistent with Statutory Authority?
Some decision makers have raised concerns about the nature of SPP activities. Some past SPP
events may have included funding for U.S. civilian and foreign civilian participation when such
funding was outside the scope of the statutes involved (see “Civilian Engagements”). The NGB
has issued guidance intended to prevent such occurrences,33 and the Department of Defense is
30
H.R. 2647.
P.L. 111-84, Section 1210, October 28, 2009, National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010.
32
National Guard Bureau, Memorandum for National Guard State Partnership Program Coordinators, “Fiscal Year
2011 State Partnership Program Funding Guidance,” paragraph 4(a), October 29, 2010.
33
National Guard Bureau, International Affairs Division, Memorandum for National Guard State Partnership Program
(continued...)
31
Congressional Research Service
15
The National Guard State Partnership Program
expected to release a Directive Type Memorandum in the near future more clearly specifying
authorized SPP activities.
Is SPP Effective?
In October 2010, the State Department in conjunction with the National Guard conducted a
survey of U.S. ambassadors, asking them for their perspective on various aspects of the SPP. Of
the 62 embassies surveyed, 41 responded. All but one respondent agreed that “the SPP was
valuable in helping meet [the] Post’s goals and objectives.” Several combatant commanders have
also commented favorably on the program during recent congressional testimony.34 To date,
however, written assessments of SPP have been limited in scope and focused on “outputs”—for
example, the number and type of events conducted with partner nations—rather than on
“outcomes,” such as improvements in specified capabilities of a partner nation or the impact on
specific defense reform initiatives of a partner nation. This lack of data is not specific to SPP but,
according to a recent RAND report, is common to security cooperation programs in general:
Security cooperation activities conducted by DoD entities with other nations’ defense
organizations range from the very visible—training, equipping, and exercising together—to
those that are less obvious, such as holding bilateral talks, workshops, and conferences and
providing education. Yet, it is often challenging to determine if these activities have
contributed to U.S. objectives—whether at the level of national security, department,
COCOM, or service—and if so, by how much or in what ways. Because security cooperation
is both dispersed and long-term, it is difficult to measure. At present, program assessments
are inconsistent and of varying quality. They may lack objectivity since they are frequently
conducted by the organizations that implement the programs. A comprehensive framework
for assessing is lacking, although efforts are in place to remedy that deficiency.35
The NGB’s International Affairs Division is currently developing “measures of effectiveness” that
will be used in the future to measure progress toward achieving program goals.
(...continued)
Coordinators, Fiscal Year 2011 State Partnership Program Funding Guidance, October 29, 2010,
34
“The State Partnership Program accounts for 45% of European Command’s military-to-military engagement....The
true value of this program is the enduring relationships that have been built over time, as many of European
Command’s state partnerships are approaching their twenty-year anniversaries. Perhaps the greatest example of how
critical these relationships are is that in 2010 National Guard personnel deployed to Afghanistan together with five
partner nations as members of Observer Mentor Liaison Teams and other forces training and fighting side-by-side.”
Statement of James G. Stavridis, Commander, United States European Command, before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, March 29, 2011. “The State Partnership Program is a superb tool that fosters a variety of military-tomilitary, military-to-civilian, and civilian-to-civilian engagements using National Guard and U.S. states’ capabilities...
.The State Partnership Program delivers programs and activities that build broad capabilities with our African partners.
The habitual relationships this builds adds tremendous value to our efforts. This program is very valuable to U.S.
Africa Command, and we look forward to expanding it as our African partners request greater participation. I urge your
continued support.” Statement of General William E. Ward, Commander, United States Africa Command, before the
Senate Armed Services Committee, March 9, 2010.
35
Jennifer D. P. Moroney, Jefferson P. Marquis, and Cathryn Quantic Thurston, et al., A Framework to Assess
Programs to Build Partnerships, RAND National Defense Research Institute, 2009, p. xiii, http://www.rand.org.
Congressional Research Service
16
The National Guard State Partnership Program
What Role Should the State Department Play in SPP
Administration and Oversight?
Some policymakers may argue for a larger State Department role in SPP administration and
oversight from Washington, especially if they are concerned about the expansion of DOD into
foreign assistance-type activities. The Secretary of State is, by law, responsible for the direction
and oversight of all military education and training programs, no matter what title they fall
under.36 This duty is exercised directly for the traditional education and training programs
governed by Title 22 (Foreign Affairs) authorities. For Title 10 and other DOD authorities with a
training and education aspect, as well as for other foreign assistance activities, specific
requirements for the Secretary of State’s concurrence or consultation are sometimes written into
the law.37 In addition, the DOS has primary responsibility and authority for all foreign assistance
activities.38 Nevertheless, Congress has increasingly authorized DOD, through Title 10 or annual
legislation, to conduct security assistance and security cooperation programs. Some policymakers
and analysts have viewed this trend as detrimental to coherent U.S. foreign policymaking and
conduct over the long run.39 Others view security cooperation as an increasingly important “core
competency” of the U.S. military and advocate a broader role for the Department of Defense in
security assistance and security cooperation.
SPP activities are currently conducted under Title 10, Title 3240 and National Defense
Authorization Act authorities. A few of these authorities require a State Department role, but even
then the mandates are not consistent. Events conducted under 10 U.S.C. 168 (Military to Military
Contacts), 10 U.S.C. 401 (Humanitarian and Civic Assistance), and Section 1206 (P.L. 109-163,
as amended, Building Partnership Capacity) require the approval of the Secretary of State; 10
U.S.C. 2010 (Participation of Developing Countries in Combined Exercises) requires consultation
36
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (FAA, P.L. 87-195), provides in Section 622(c) (22 U.S.C. 2382)
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.” The FAA (Section 644) states “‘Military education and training’ includes formal or informal
instruction of foreign students in the United States or overseas by officers or employees of the United States, contract
technicians, contractors (including instruction at civilian institutions), or by correspondence courses, technical,
educational, or information publications and media of all kinds, training aids, orientation, and military advice to foreign
military units and forces.” (22 U.S.C. 2403(n))
37
For more on DOD education and training and other foreign assistance and foreign assistance-type authorities and
activities, see CRS Report RL34639, The Department of Defense Role in Foreign Assistance: Background, Major
Issues, and Options for Congress, coordinated by (name redacted). See also CRS Report R41817, Building the
Capacity of Partner States Through Security Force Assistance, by (name redacted).
38
The U.S. Army Operational Law Handbook for 2010 notes the State Department’s legal authority to conduct foreign
assistance (citing 22 U.S.C. 2151, FAA Section 101) and states that “The general rule in Funding U.S. Military
Operations is that the Department of State (DoS) has the primary responsibility, authority, and funding to conduct
Foreign Assistance on behalf of the USG [U.S. Government]. Foreign assistance encompasses any and all assistance to
a foreign nation, including Security Assistance (assistance to the internal police forces and military forces of the foreign
nation), Development Assistance (assistance to the foreign government in projects that will assist the development of
the foreign economy or their [sic] political institutions), and Humanitarian Assistance (direct assistance to the
population of a foreign nation).” Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, U.S. Army, Operational Law
Handbook, Charlottesville, VA, 2010, pp. 223-224.
39
For more information on this, see CRS Report RS22855, Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background
and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
40
Title 32 is only used for SPP events conducted within the United States. 32 U.S.C. 502 is used to place National
Guard personnel in a duty status, permitting them to receive appropriate military pay and benefits.
Congressional Research Service
17
The National Guard State Partnership Program
with Secretary of State; and 10 U.S.C. 2557 (Excess-Non-Lethal Supplies) involves the Secretary
of State. (For most of these, however, the Secretary of State apparently has delegated coordination
responsibility.) The remaining authorities used for SPP events (see Appendix B ) have no
statutory requirement for any level of State Department involvement. However, in the case of at
least one authority, 10 U.S.C. 2249c (Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship
Program), DOD and the State Department have established an informal coordination system.
Currently, the State Department does not play a systematic role in SPP administration and
oversight globally. Unlike some other DOD security cooperation activities, no one at the State
Department is charged with the responsibility of overseeing all SPP programs. State Department
involvement is focused at the embassy level, where the ambassador (or other chief of mission)
must approve SPP proposals. At the State Department itself, country desk officers are informed of
SPP activities. Issues arising from SPP missions are handled by the country desks and their
regional bureaus. In addition, the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs and Office of the Special
Representative for Global Intergovernmental Affairs (S/SRGIA) often engage the NGB on policy
matters pertaining to the SPP.
Should SPP Have a Dedicated Statutory Authority?
To some Members of Congress, the expansion of the SPP to 63 partnerships over the past two
decades requires that they be conducted under a new, coherent, overarching SPP authority, rather
than under multiple and diverse Title 10 and NDAA authorities. From this perspective, a single
statute could provide a clear, coherent, and permanent framework for the National Guard to
conduct SPP activities, clarifying purposes and permitted events, standardizing interagency
coordination, and regulating the use of funds. For instance, a dedicated SPP statute might be used
to set a single standard for State Department input. It might also be used to mandate centralized
oversight of the program. Currently, the NGB approves activities that it funds, and the COCOMs
exercise approval over SPP activities that they fund. No single organization, however, is
responsible for overseeing and standardizing all activities. The lack of a set of standards for SPP
and of a single oversight body may have contributed in the past to confusion about what
constitutes an appropriate SPP event; some past SPP events might have been outside the scope of
the statutes involved.
Should the Contours of the Program Be Modified?
Among those interviewed for this report, a number who were directly involved with SPP
suggested that the program could better serve U.S. interests if it were modified in one or more of
the following ways. One approach would focus the program on specific mission sets in which the
National Guard has particular expertise or civilian acquired skills. Another approach would allow
greater participation by U.S. civilians in SPP events. A third perspective would include a wider
range of foreign civilians as participants. However, such changes were critiqued by other
individuals interviewed.
Types of Missions Performed
The National Guard is a unique organization in that it is both a state and a federal entity. In its
federal status, the National Guard is a reserve component of the Army and Air Force, and focuses
on developing and using military skills. As a state organization, however, it focuses largely on
Congressional Research Service
18
The National Guard State Partnership Program
emergency management, particularly with respect to natural disasters, and responding to civil
disorders. This expertise can be especially valuable to partner nations in which the military plays
a leading role in responding to natural disasters, securing the nation’s borders, or controlling civil
unrest. Some supporters of the SPP argue that the program should be reshaped to recognize this
unique niche that the National Guard can fill. On the other hand, this could open the program and
participants to scrutiny if partner nation personnel were trained in a manner inconsistent with
military doctrine, were trained on topics not covered by military doctrine, or received inconsistent
training due to the varied backgrounds of the instructors.
Scope of U.S. Participation
Some supporters of the SPP argue that, while remaining “Guard-centric,” it should be adapted to
become a “whole of government” program. From this perspective, the National Guard would
remain the backbone of the program, but federal, state, and local government employees should
also be allowed to participate in the program if they could contribute effectively to a given event.
Under this vision, if a SPP event in a foreign country were to focus on emergency management,
there might be participants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the state
emergency management agency, and local first responders in addition to the National Guard
participants.
Another aspect of this concept would allow National Guard personnel to participate based on
their civilian acquired skills, rather than just their military skills. This would allow the National
Guard to provide a broader array of expertise to foreign nations in support of U.S. objectives. For
example, some National Guard personnel have civilian employment with police or other law
enforcement institutions. Their civilian expertise could be used to share information and advice
with countries in which the United States had a strong interest in enhancing the administration of
justice and rule of law. However, permitting this would likely raise concerns about the content of
the information provided, to ensure that it supports U.S. objectives, and the need to standardize
the program of instruction for the purpose of consistency.
Such a shift in the staffing and nature of SPP events might call into question the management of
the SPP by DOD. With a broader array of governmental participation, the DOS might be better
suited to oversee the program, perhaps with DOD as the executive agent.
Authorized Foreign Participants
The NGB recently issued guidance for SPP events that it funds which limits participation by
foreign civilians (see “Recent Legislative and Executive Branch Activity”). Under this guidance,
foreign civilians could participate in an SPP event in certain circumstances—for example, if they
worked for the foreign nation Ministry of Defense (MOD), or in certain cases if they were invited
by the MOD—but funding for engagements with other foreign civilians were generally not
authorized. Some supporters of SPP argue that these restrictions do not always correspond well
with the structure of foreign governments, and that they erect a barrier to what have in the past
been fruitful areas of cooperation. With respect to the first point, supporters note that some
countries have armed forces that do not fall under the MOD, but may instead fall under a border
security agency or an independent counterterrorism agency. With respect to the second point,
supporters argue that foreign civilian agencies often play a critical role in the stability and
security of their nations, and interacting with these agencies can advance U.S. security interests.
Congressional Research Service
19
The National Guard State Partnership Program
For example, they note that non-defense ministries—such as a Ministry of Interior or a Ministry
of Emergency Situations—often have “security sector” type responsibilities.
Options for Congress
Monitor Implementation of the Directive Type Memorandum
The DOD regulations regarding funding for activities conducted under the SPP, as required by
Section 1210 of the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act, are supposed to be finalized in
the near future by way of a Directive Type Memorandum (DTM). The DTM will subsequently be
converted into a Department of Defense Instruction (DODI). Monitoring its implementation will
allow Congress to determine whether it effectively defines appropriate activities and constrains
unauthorized activities. It should also provide Congress with additional information on areas of
the program that merit particular attention if Congress later elects to codify the program in law.
However, as the DTM is bound by existing statutory guidance, it will have a limited ability to
resolve some of the tensions relating to types of missions performed, authorized participants, and
oversight responsibilities.
Direct Periodic Evaluations
To ensure that the SPP is contributing substantially to U.S. objectives, and in a cost-effective
manner, Congress may wish to review the SPP’s program goals, assessment methodology, and
internal assessments. Congress may also wish to evaluate how robustly SPP events support key
plans, including combatant commanders’ Theater Campaign Plans (TCPs) and U.S. ambassadors’
Mission Strategic and Resource Plans (MSRPs). It could do this through committee hearings or
by requiring periodic reports to Congress on the topic. Alternatively, it could direct a review by an
external agency, such as the Government Accountability Office.
Require Centralized Approval of SPP Activities
NGB currently exercises approval authority over any activities that it funds, but not over
activities that COCOMs fund. Each COCOM exercises approval authority over SPP activities
within its area of responsibility, but not over activities elsewhere. There is no centralized
oversight of the program. This may increase the possibility of mistakes being made in the
administration of the program. Requiring a single organization—such as NGB, the Defense
Security Cooperation Agency, or the Department of State—to have approval authority over all
SPP activities might facilitate a more standardized approach to the program and thereby improve
program administration. On the other hand, adding an additional layer of management could
make event coordination cumbersome.
Codify the State Partnership Program in Law
Because of the wide array of statutory authorities and funding sources that SPP currently draws
upon, it takes significant effort and legal guidance to determine which SPP activities are
permissible and which are not. This may generate confusion and lead to approval of SPP activities
Congressional Research Service
20
The National Guard State Partnership Program
that are outside the scope of the law. Therefore, Congress may consider establishing specific
parameters for SPP activities in law.
Depending on the content of the DTM that DOD is currently developing for the SPP, Congress
may consider a variety of statutory responses. Congress could codify that guidance if it sets
adequate standards and procedures to ensure the appropriate use of funds and adequate oversight.
If the DOD guidance lacks those elements, Congress may develop its own guidelines for the
program. This authority might contain a list of the type of events permitted, the purposes they are
to serve, the appropriate funding sources, a mandate for State Department approval or
consultation, and periodic reports to Congress. This approach might have drawbacks. Depending
on how it is drafted, such a law might restrict the current broad range of SPP activities and
impose new requirements that limit flexibility and timeliness. SPP activities may also be more
difficult to implement under a law if it contains more coordination requirements than under
current authorities governed by unifying DOD guidance.
If Congress chooses to codify the program in law, some areas that may deserve particular
attention are detailed below.
Authorized Activities and Participants
Some have advocated modifications to the current program focusing on missions sets in which
the National Guard has particular military expertise or in which National Guard personnel have
civilian expertise, allowing certain U.S. civilians and a wider range of foreign civilians to
participate in SPP events. Congress may include language that details the scope of authorized
activities, the extent to which U.S. citizens other than members of the National Guard can
participate, and the types of foreign personnel they can engage. It may require standardized
programs of instruction for topics that fall outside of current military doctrine. If state, local, or
private sector individuals are allowed to participate in SPP, Congress may establish the
circumstances under which their participation can be funded by the federal government and
provide for reimbursement mechanisms in other circumstances.
Effectiveness
Though determining the effectiveness of security cooperation programs such as SPP is inherently
challenging, it is an area that Congress may wish to address in any SPP statute. To this end,
Congress may consider defining certain program goals in law, provide some guidance on an
assessment methodology, stipulate the frequency of assessments, assign responsibility to a
particular office, and require periodic reports from the executive branch on the topic.
Role of the State Department
If Congress were to adopt a new statute governing the SPP, some may question whether it should
be placed under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which covers the armed forces, or Title 22, in which
the State Department generally has the lead. Those who prefer Title 10 would note that SPP
activities are currently conducted under Title 10 and NDAA authorities, and that SPP funding is
provided through the DOD budget. In addition, SPP programs may be more flexible and easier to
implement under Title 10.
Congressional Research Service
21
The National Guard State Partnership Program
On the other hand, the State Department has used the National Guard for Title 22 training
activities with their foreign partners (see Appendix C), and some Members may prefer that SPP
events be placed under Title 22. SPP events may have side effects for foreign policy not
anticipated by state government and DOD planners or ambassadors. Some may argue for greater
State Department oversight to ensure that state governments are aware of foreign policy concerns
and guidelines, especially if these events are accompanied by or lead to non-defense-related
engagements of U.S. and foreign civilians.
If placed under Title 22, the program could take on more of a public diplomacy role. For example,
Congress might more readily provide authority under Title 22 for SPP to use National Guard
troops for activities using their civilian skills instead of just their military skills. Similarly, under
Title 22 authority Congress might be more willing to dispense with the requirement under some
Title 10 authorities used for SPP that the primary purpose of training events be the training of
U.S. forces, possibly providing a broader range of activities for SPP.
Placing SPP under Title 22, however, may well add another layer of complexity for state-based
organizations with little experience operating with the Department of State. It might weaken the
ability of the combatant commanders to use SPP to engage with foreign militaries, and thereby
reduce their interest in supporting the program. In addition, placing SPP under Title 22 might shift
the focus away from using the military skills of the National Guard personnel in favor of their
civilian expertise, which could limit the utility of SPP in exercising the military skills of
participants. Finally, State Department capacity to oversee military programs is viewed as having
limitations and some may argue for augmenting this capacity before adding additional duties.
Congressional Research Service
22
The National Guard State Partnership Program
Appendix A. State Partnerships: Table and
World Map
Table A-1. List of State Partnerships as of July 2011
Alabama / Romania
Kansas / Armenia
North Carolina / Moldova
Alaska / Mongolia
Kentucky / Ecuador
North Dakota / Ghana
Arizona / Kazakhstan
Louisiana / Belize
Ohio / Hungary
Arkansas / Guatemala
Louisiana / Haiti
Ohio / Serbia
California / Nigeria
Louisiana / Uzbekistan
Oklahoma / Azerbaijan
California / Ukraine
Maine / Montenegro
Oregon / Bangladesh
Colorado / Jordan
Maryland / Bosnia
Pennsylvania / Lithuania
Colorado / Slovenia
Maryland / Estonia
Puerto Rico / Dominican Republic
Connecticut / Uruguay
Massachusetts / Paraguay
Puerto Rico / Honduras
Delaware / Trinidad-Tobago
Michigan / Latvia
Rhode Island / Bahamas
District of Columbia / Jamaica
Michigan / Liberia
South Dakota/Suriname
Florida / Venezuela
Minnesota / Croatia
Tennessee / Bulgaria
Florida / Guyana
Mississippi / Bolivia
Texas / Chile
Florida & Virgin Islands / Regional
Security System (Eastern
Caribbean Islands)
Missouri / Panama
Utah / Morocco
Georgia / Georgia
Montana / Kyrgyzstan
Vermont / Macedonia
Hawaii / Indonesia
Nebraska & Texas/Czech Republic
Vermont / Senegal
Hawaii & Guam / Philippines
New Hampshire / El Salvador
Virginia / Tajikistan
Idaho / Cambodia
New Jersey / Albania
Washington / Thailand
Illinois / Poland
New Mexico / Costa Rica
West Virginia / Peru
Indiana / Slovakia
New York / South Africa
Wisconsin / Nicaragua
Iowa / Kosovo
North Carolina / Botswana
Wyoming / Tunisia
Source: National Guard Bureau.
Note: The Regional Security System, partnered with the Florida and U.S. Virgin Island National Guard, is a
collective security agreement for seven island nations in the Eastern Caribbean: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados,
Dominica, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
Congressional Research Service
23
The National Guard State Partnership Program
Figure A-1. Map of State Partnerships as of July 2011
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data provided by the National Guard Bureau.
Note: Numbers on the map refer to the specific state partnership listed below the map with the same number.
CRS-24
The National Guard State Partnership Program
Appendix B. Title 10 and National Defense
Authorization Act Authorities That May Be Used by
the SPP
Table B-1. Title 10 and NDAA Authorities Used by the SPP
Statutory
Authority
Purposes
10 USC 166a
Combatant Commanders Initiative Fund. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may make funds
available to Combatant Commanders for a variety of purposes, including joint exercises,
humanitarian and civic assistance, military education and training for foreign military and related
civilian personnel, and personnel expenses of defense personnel for bilateral and regional
cooperation programs.
10 USC 168
Military to Military Contacts (also referred to as Traditional Commander’s Activities). Authorizes
the Secretary of Defense “to conduct military to military contacts and comparable activities
that are designed to encourage a democratic orientation of defense establishments and military
forces of other countries.” Authorized activities include traveling contact teams, military liaison
teams, exchanges of military personnel between U.S. and foreign units, exchanges of military
and civilian personnel between DOD and a foreign defense ministry, seminars and conferences
held primarily in a theater of operations, reimbursement of military personnel appropriations
accounts for the pay and allowances of reserve component personnel engaged in such
activities, and the assignment of DOD civilians and military personnel on a non-reciprocal
basis. No activities may be conducted under this authority in a foreign country without the
approval of the Secretary of State.
10 USC 184
Regional Centers for Security Studies. Authorizes the Secretary of Defense to administer five
regional centers for security studies, which are to serve as forums for “bilateral and multilateral
research, communications, and exchange of ideas involving military and civilian participants.”
The five centers are the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Germany,
the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Hawaii, the Center for Hemispheric Defense
Studies in Washington, DC, the Africa Center for Strategic Studies in Washington, DC, and the
Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies in Washington, DC. Participants may include
military, civilian, and non-governmental personnel from the United States and foreign countries.
10 USC 401
Humanitarian and Civic Assistance Provided in Conjunction with Military Operations. The Secretary of
a military department may carry out humanitarian and civic assistance activities in conjunction
with ongoing military operations as the Secretary determines it will be beneficial to the security
interests of both the U.S. and the affected foreign country, and will promote the operational
readiness skills of the U.S. military personnel who participate. The Secretary of State must
approve any such assistance. Humanitarian and civic assistance as defined in this statute
includes medical, surgical, dental, and veterinary assistance to underserved areas, including
education, training, and technical assistance related to the care provided; construction of
rudimentary roads; well drilling and constructing basic sanitation facilities; and rudimentary
construction and repair of public facilities.
10 USC 402
Transportation of Humanitarian Relief Supplies to Foreign Countries. The Secretary of Defense may
transport humanitarian relief supplies furnished by a non-governmental source to any country,
on a space-available basis, without charge. This authority may also be used in certain
circumstances to transport supplies to respond to an event that threatens environmental harm
(such as an oil spill).
10 USC 404
Foreign Disaster Assistance. At the direction of the President, the Secretary of Defense may
provide transportation, supplies, services and equipment outside the United States to respond
to natural or man-made disasters, in order to save lives or prevent serious harm to the
environment.
Congressional Research Service
25
The National Guard State Partnership Program
Statutory
Authority
Purposes
10 USC 1050
Latin American Cooperation: Payment of Personnel Expenses. “The Secretary of Defense or the
Secretary of a military department may pay the travel, subsistence, and special compensation of
officers and students of Latin American countries and other expenses which the Secretary
considers necessary for Latin American cooperation.”
10 USC 1051
Multilateral, Bilateral, or Regional Cooperation Programs: Payment of Personnel Expenses. “The
Secretary of Defense may pay the travel, subsistence, and similar personal expenses of
developing countries in connection with the attendance of such personnel at a multilateral,
bilateral, or regional conference, seminar, or similar meeting if the Secretary determines that
the attendance of such personnel…is in the national security interests of the United States”
and such other expenses in connection with the meeting as the Secretary considers in the
national security interests of the United States. Normally, these expenses may only be paid for
travel to, from, or within the area of responsibility of the combatant command in which the
conference, seminar or meeting is held, with exceptions.
10 USC 2249c
Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program. Under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense, DOD funds may be used to pay any costs associated with the education
and training of foreign military officers, defense officials, or security officials at educational
institutions, regional centers, conferences, seminars, or other training programs conducted
under the Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Program. Expenditures capped at $35
million per fiscal year.
10 USC 2557
Excess Non-Lethal Supplies. The Secretary of Defense may provide excess non-lethal DOD
supplies for humanitarian relief purposes. Such supplies must be transferred to the Secretary of
State, who is responsible for distribution.
10 USC 2561
Humanitarian Assistance. Funds authorized to be appropriated to DOD for humanitarian
assistance shall be used to provide transportation of humanitarian relief and for other
humanitarian purposes. The Secretary of Defense may use funds authorized for humanitarian
assistance to transport supplies intended to be used to respond to events that threaten serious
harm to the environment (such as an oil spill) if other sources are not available.
Section 1082,
P.L. 104-201
Agreements for Exchange of Defense Personnel Between the United States and Foreign Countries. The
Secretary of Defense may enter into agreements to exchange military and civilian personnel of
DOD with military and civilian personnel of a foreign defense ministry. Exchanged personnel
may be assigned to positions as instructors; DOD personnel may be assigned to positions in
private industry that support the foreign defense ministry.
Section 1206,
P.L. 109-163
Authority to Build Capacity of Foreign Military Forces. “The President may direct the Secretary of
Defense to conduct or support a program to build the capacity of a foreign country’s national
military forces in order for that country to (1) conduct counter-terrorist operations; or (2)
participate in or support military and stability operations in which the United States Armed
Forces are a participant.” Such a program may include providing equipment, supplies, and
training. The program shall include elements that promote respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms and respect for legitimate civilian authorities within that nation. The
program shall be jointly developed by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, and
the Secretary of Defense shall coordinate with the Secretary of State on its implementation.
Section 1207,
P.L. 111-84
Authority for Non-Reciprocal Exchanges of Defense Personnel Between the United States and Foreign
Countries. The Secretary of Defense may enter into agreements with the governments of allied
or friendly foreign countries for the exchange of military and civilian personnel of the foreign
defense ministry. They may be assigned to positions in the Department of Defense.
Source: Title 10, United States Code, and cited public laws.
Congressional Research Service
26
The National Guard State Partnership Program
Appendix C. State Partnerships and Title 22
Authorities
According to NGB representatives, the SPP currently operates only under Title 10, Title 32 and
National Defense Authorization Act authorities. Under this definition, therefore, SPP events do
not occur under Title 22 authorities at the present time. However, there are circumstances in
which a state National Guard might operate under Title 22 authorities in support of their partner
nation. For example, a nation that is approved to receive peacekeeping training under the Global
Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI) may request that the state National Guard it is partnered with
provide some of the trainers. If such a request were approved by the appropriate DOS and DOD
officials, then GPOI funds would be used to fund some of the expenses associated with the state
National Guard training of its partner nation’s forces. While these are not considered to be “SPP
events” by NGB, the distinction may not be apparent to many of those participating in the
training.
Individuals interviewed for this report referred to three Title 22 authorities that have been used in
the past to fund training by a state National Guard with its partner nation. They are listed below.
Determining the frequency of such Title 22 events was outside the scope of this report, but they
appear to have been relatively infrequent in comparison to the frequency of Title 10 SPP events.
Appropriations for these three Title 22 programs are provided under the State Department’s
Security Assistance (previously the Military Assistance) account.
Global Peace Operations Initiative. Through GPOI the U.S. government provides foreign
military forces from developing countries with training in peacekeeping skills and helps develop
associated peacekeeping capacity. GPOI was built on the earlier African Contingency Operations
Training and Assistance (ACOTA) program and its Africa component often is still referred to by
that acronym. The State Department is primarily responsible for the program, but works closely
with DOD to plan and implement programs through DOD’s Defense Security Cooperation
Agency (DSCA) and the geographic Combatant Commands. Authorization is provided by Section
551 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA, P.L. 87-195; 22 U.S.C. 2348), as amended.
International Military Education and Training Program. The IMET program provides foreign
military personnel with the opportunity to attend a variety of U.S. military educational institutions
and training courses. The Expanded-IMET (E-IMET) component provides foreign civilian and
military leaders and mangers of foreign military establishments with opportunities to enhance
their skills in managing and administering military establishments and budgets, creating and
maintaining effective military judicial systems and military codes of conduct (including
observance of international recognized human rights), and fostering respect for the principle of
civilian control of the military. The State Department, with input from DOD, decides which
foreign countries will be permitted to participate and their respective funding levels. DOD’s
DSCA implements the program. Authorization is provided by Section 541 of the Foreign
Assistance Act (FAA, P.L. 87-195; 22 U.S.C. 2347), as amended.
Foreign Military Sales and Foreign Military Financing Programs. The FMS program is the
United States government’s primary vehicle for sales of weapons and associated equipment and
training to friendly foreign governments. Through the FMF element of the program, the U.S.
government may extend loans to countries that have difficulty paying for needed weapons,
military equipment, and related items, or it may forgive payments altogether. The State
Congressional Research Service
27
The National Guard State Partnership Program
Department is primarily responsible for determining which nations receive military assistance
from this program. DOD’s DSCA bears primary responsibility for implementing the program.
FMS is authorized by Sections 1-4 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA, P.L. 90-629; 22
U.S.C. 2751 - 2754), as amended; FMF is authorized by Section 23 of the AECA (22 U.S.C.
2763).
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
( name redacted)
Specialist in International Security Affairs
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
28
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.