This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-416R 
entitled 'Section 1206 Security Assistance Program--Findings on 
Criteria, Coordination, and Implementation' which was released on March 
5, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

February 28, 2007: 

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Foreign Relations: 
United States Senate: 

Subject: Section 1206 Security Assistance Program--Findings on 
Criteria, Coordination, and Implementation: 

Dear Senator Lugar: 

Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006 
established a new program that gives the Department of Defense (DOD) 
the authority to spend up to $200 million of its own appropriations to 
train and equip foreign militaries to undertake counterterrorism or 
stability operations.[Footnote 1] Department of State (State) and DOD 
officials have cited the importance of this program in building 
capacity among partner nations to help fight the global war on terror. 
Moreover, they believe that compared with traditional security 
assistance programs funded by State, Section 1206 assistance will 
provide greater flexibility to respond quickly to emerging threats and 
opportunities. However, some believe that such a program should be 
funded in the foreign affairs budget, which is administered by State, 
to ensure that the Secretary of State has the authority to manage 
foreign policy decisions and bilateral relationships. 

To address your questions about the new Section 1206 security 
assistance program, we examined (1) what criteria State and DOD use to 
select recipient countries and types of assistance, (2) how State and 
DOD coordinate the formulation and approval of Section 1206 programs, 
and (3) how State and DOD implement Section 1206 programs. As part of 
our audit work, we interviewed State and DOD headquarters officials 
involved in the Section 1206 program and officials involved in 
formulating fiscal year 2006 proposals at embassies and combatant 
commands. We also reviewed the program's authorizing legislation and 
State and DOD guidance. We briefed your staff on our findings on 
December 14, 2006. See Enclosure I for a copy of the briefing slides, 
which we have updated based on technical comments provided by DOD and 
State. 

Background: 

Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006 
authorizes DOD to provide equipment, supplies, or training to a foreign 
country to build its capacity to (1) conduct counterterrorism 
operations or (2) participate in or support stability operations in 
which the U.S. military also participates.[Footnote 2] The law limits 
the provision of assistance to a foreign country's national military 
forces,[Footnote 3] which State and DOD have interpreted to mean units 
under the ministry of defense, not interior. The law also states that 
no country may receive Section 1206 assistance if it is prohibited from 
receiving similar assistance under other laws.[Footnote 4] Further, the 
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, must 
notify Congress no less than 15 days before initiating activities in 
any country.[Footnote 5] Additionally, State and DOD must jointly 
formulate all projects and coordinate their implementation.[Footnote 6] 

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 increased the annual 
funding authority from $200 million to $300 million and extended the 
program for an additional year until the end of fiscal year 
2008.[Footnote 7] It also delegated approval authority from the 
President to the Secretary of Defense, with Secretary of State 
concurrence.[Footnote 8] State and DOD officials interpret the term 
"concurrence" to mean that the Secretary of State, along with the 
Secretary of Defense, must approve all projects. 

In fiscal year 2006--the first year of the Section 1206 program--DOD 
and State approved a total of about $100 million for nine projects 
involving 15 countries (see encl. II for a description of the projects 
and a list of the participating countries).[Footnote 9] This assistance 
was used primarily for equipment to improve the counterterrorism 
capabilities of recipient countries. For some countries, Section 1206 
assistance represented a significant dollar increase in fiscal year 
2006 over U.S. security assistance provided through the traditional 
State-funded programs.[Footnote 10] DOD's Defense Security Cooperation 
Agency (DSCA) directs, administers, and supervises the execution of all 
security assistance programs, including Section 1206 assistance. 

Summary: 

State and DOD select Section 1206 projects based on criteria 
established in the authorizing legislation and departmental guidance to 
combatant commands and embassies. State and DOD reviewers stated that 
they examine all proposals to ensure that no country participates in a 
Section 1206 project if it is ineligible to receive security assistance 
under other U.S. laws. Reviewers also stated that they reject proposals 
involving assistance to units under the authority of the ministry of 
interior rather than the ministry of defense. State and DOD guidance 
requires embassies and combatant commands to explain how their 
proposals support U.S. national security objectives and address urgent 
or emerging threats or opportunities. Proposals also must explain 
whether other sources of funds are available and how the project will 
be sustained in future years. Additionally, in considering proposals 
involving their host country, the embassy country team and ambassador 
typically weigh such factors as compatibility of the proposed project 
with U.S. foreign policy goals and the partner country's willingness to 
participate in the project and ability to absorb the assistance. 

State and DOD have developed a coordinated process for jointly 
reviewing and selecting proposals for Section 1206 projects; however, 
coordination in formulating proposals did not occur consistently 
between combatant commands and embassy country teams. Once project 
proposals are received from combatant commands and embassies, several 
State and DOD offices or bureaus examine all proposals and then meet to 
jointly decide which ones they recommend for funding. A final list of 
projects is presented concurrently to the Secretaries of Defense and 
State for their approval. DOD fiscal year 2007 guidance to combatant 
commands specifies that programs must be developed jointly with embassy 
country teams and that ambassadors should have full knowledge of 
proposed projects from their inception. However, we found that for 
projects funded in fiscal year 2006 prior to the issuance of formal 
guidance, this coordination occurred in only 5 of 14 instances before 
proposals were submitted for joint DOD and State review.[Footnote 11] 
In 9 of the 14 instances, coordination efforts took place before the 
departments notified Congress about the proposals. Ultimately, no 
project would be implemented without the support of the ambassador, 
according to State and DOD officials. The combatant commands and 
embassies we contacted reported better coordination in the formulation 
of fiscal year 2007 proposals. They attributed this improvement to 
having more time to develop proposals and more explicit guidance from 
State and DOD. 

DOD's DSCA and security assistance officers at embassies implement 
Section 1206 assistance using the same processes established for other 
traditional State-funded security assistance programs. For example, for 
each equipment transfer to a partner country, DSCA establishes the 
terms and conditions of the transfer and provides fiscal oversight. At 
the embassy, the security assistance officer is the primary point of 
contact to ensure delivery to and proper use by the recipient country. 
According to embassy and combatant command officials we contacted, DOD 
and State meet the requirement to coordinate implementation of Section 
1206 projects through embassy-based security assistance officers, who 
report to both their combatant commanders and ambassadors. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Defense and 
State, both of which provided technical comments that we incorporated 
as appropriate. In commenting on our draft, State and DOD agreed with 
our finding that their efforts to jointly formulate Section 1206 
proposals improved for fiscal year 2007. They also stated that they 
expect continued improvement as they gain more experience with this 
program. 

Scope and Methodology: 

To answer our three research questions, we examined the nine Section 
1206 projects selected for funding in fiscal year 2006. (See encl. II 
for a description of the projects and a list of the 15 participating 
countries.) We interviewed officials from combatant commands and U.S. 
embassies responsible for these projects and also interviewed State and 
DOD officials that participated in the joint review and implementation 
process. At DOD, we interviewed officials in the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Defense Security Cooperation 
Agency, and the Office of General Counsel. At the State Department, we 
interviewed officials in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, 
regional bureaus, the Bureau of Legal Affairs, the Office of the 
Director of Foreign Assistance (F Bureau), and the Office of the 
Coordinator for Counterterrorism (S/CT). Lastly, we reviewed the 
National Defense Authorization Acts of 2006 and 2007 and consulted 
State and DOD guidance for submitting Section 1206 proposals. Although 
the Thailand project was canceled, we included it in our assessment of 
coordination between the embassies and the combatant commands. 

We conducted our review from September 2006 to February 2007 in 
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. 

-------------------------------------: 

As agreed with your staff, unless you publicly announce the contents of 
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 5 days from 
the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to 
the Secretaries of Defense and State and interested congressional 
committees. We will also make copies available to others on request. In 
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site 
at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-8979 or christoffj@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional: 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 
report. Key contributors to this report include Muriel Forster, 
Assistant Director; Lynn Cothern; Howard Cott; Martin De Alteriis; Drew 
Lindsey; and Grace Lui. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Joseph A. Christoff: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 

Enclosures: 

[end of section] 

Enclosure I: Briefing: 

Section 1206 Security Assistance: 

Briefing for Senate Foreign Relations Committee Staff: 

December 14, 2006: 

Objectives and Methodology: 

Objectives: 

What criteria do State and DOD use to select recipient countries and 
types of assistance? 

How do State and DOD coordinate on formulation and approval of Section 
1206 programs? 

How do State and DOD implement Section 1206 programs? 

Methodology: 

Interviews with the 4 combatant commands (COCOMs) and 13 of the 15 U.S. 
embassies involved in projects selected for FY06 funding: 

Interviews with State and DOD officials involved in the joint review 
and implementation process, including OSD, the Joint Staff, DSCA, OGC, 
State PM and regional bureaus, State Legal Advisor (L), the Office of 
the Director of Foreign Assistance (F), and the Office of the 
Coordinator for Counterterrorism (S/CT): 

Review of State and DOD guidance for submitting proposals: 

Summary of Findings: 

Departments reported that decisions on proposals were based on criteria 
in law and guidance: 

State and DOD have a coordinated process for reviewing and approving 
proposals: 

Level of coordination between COCOMs and embassies to formulate 
proposals varied in FY06 and appears to have improved in FY07: 

FY07 guidance emphasizes coordination between COCOMs and embassies: 

1206 programs will be implemented in the same manner as the Foreign 
Military Financing (FMF) program: 

Implementation will be coordinated through Security Assistance Officers 
(SAOs) at embassies: 

Background: Section 1206 of the FY06 National Defense Authorization 
Act: 

Equipment, supplies, or training may be provided to a foreign country's 
national military forces to build capacity for counterterrorist 
operations or military/stability operations in which the U.S. military 
participates: 

May not be used to provide assistance to any country otherwise 
prohibited from receiving such assistance under other laws: 

DOD and State jointly formulate and coordinate on implementation: 

Congressional notification is required not less than 15 days before 
initiating assistance in any country: 

Background: Changes in the FY07 Authorization: 

Approval authority delegated to Secretary of Defense, with concurrence 
from Secretary of State: 

Annual authorization increased from $200 million to $300 million: 

Extended authority through FY08: 

Source of funds broadened to DOD O & M (which includes all services' O 
& M funds): 

Background: Section 1206 FY06-Funded Programs: 

Section 1206 Project: Pakistan: Improving Counterterrorism Strike 
Capabilities; 
Country: Pakistan; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): CENTCOM; 
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: September 2007; 
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $23,315,456; 
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $297,000,000. 

Section 1206 Project: Yemen: Countering Cross-Border Terrorism 
Activity; 
Country: Yemen; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): CENTCOM; 
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: June 2008; 
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $4,291,374; 
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $8,415,000. 

Section 1206 Project: Lebanon: Reducing Hezbollah's Operational Space; 
Country: Lebanon; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): CENTCOM; 
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: June 2008; 
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $10,489,390; 
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $990,000. 

Section 1206 Project: Gulf of Guinea: Countering Threats to U.S. Energy 
Security; 
Country: Nigeria Sao Rome and Principe; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM; 
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: September 2007; 
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $6,800,000; 
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $990,000. 

Section 1206 Project: Trans-Sahara African Countries: Securing the 
Region Against Terrorists; 
Country: Morocco, Algeria, Senegal, Nigeria, Chad, Tunisia; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM; 
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: March 2007; 
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $6,200,000; 
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $12,375,000(Morocco), $0 (Algeria), 
$495,000(Senegal), $990,000(Nigeria), $0(Chad), $8,415,000(Tunisia). 

Section 1206 Project: Indonesia: Securing Strategic Sea lanes; 
Country: Indonesia; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): PACOM; 
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: August 2008; 
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $18,409,520; 
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $990,000. 

Section 1206 Project: Sri Lanka: Reducing Ungoverned Maritime Spaces; 
Country: Sr Lanka; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): PACOM; 
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: June 2007; 
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $10,883,283; 
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $990,000. 

Section 1206 Project: Thailand: Securing Strategic Sea Lane [1]; 
Country: Thailand; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): PACOM; 
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: On hold; 
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $5,300,000; 
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $1,485,000. 

Section 1206 Project: Caribbean Basin: Forward Defense of the U.S. 
Homeland; 
Country: Dominican Republic, Panama, Operation Enduring Friendship[2]; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): SOUTHCOM; 
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: June 2007; 
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $14,406,267; 
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $941,000(Dominican Republic), 
$990,000(Panama), $3,960,000(Operation Enduring Friendship). 

9 approved projects; 
15 countries; 
4 unified commands; 
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: N\A; 
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $100,095,290; 
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $338,036,000. 

Source: GAO analysis of State and DOD agency data: 

[1] When the Thailand project was cancelled because of a coup, $5.3 
million had already been contracted for equipment. According to DSCA, 
the disposition of this equipment had not been determined as of 11/28/ 
06. 

[2] The Caribbean Basin 1206 Project supports Operation Enduring 
Friendship, which was first funded through FMF in FY06 and which 
provides support to countries in Central America and the Caribbean to 
combat transnational crime and terrorism. 

[End of table] 

Background: Timeline for Project Submission and Approval in FY07: 

31 Jul; Tasking for proposal development. 

15 Oct; COCOMs and embassies submit proposals to DOD and State. 

13 & 20 Nov; Review Board meetings. 

15 Feb; Sec Def approval with Sec State concurrence. 

1 Mar; Begin oversight committee briefs; funding sources identified. 

15 Mar; LOAs complete. 

15 Apr; Congressional notification complete; contracting begins. 

Selection Criteria: Legislation and State and DOD Guidance Provide 
Criteria for Selecting Programs: 

Proposals assessed on whether legal criteria are met and whether they 
are executable by end of fiscal year: 

Guidance interpreting the law states that assistance may only be for 
forces under authority of the ministry of defense: 

Proposals assessed for linkage with objectives in DOD Security 
Cooperation Guidance and National Military Strategic Plan for War on 
Terrorism: 

Programs should address time-sensitive, emerging threats or 
opportunities that cannot wait upon the normal budget process: 

Proposals should explain how assistance would be sustained in future 
years: 

Selection Criteria: Section 1206 Proposals Also Considered for 
Compatibility with other Assistance Projects and Foreign Policy Goals: 

State Political-Military Affairs Bureau evaluates proposals in the 
context of other security assistance programs provided to each country 
(e.g., FMF, IMET): 

As of FY07, State's Office of Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance 
reviews proposals for compatibility with all other U.S. assistance in 
each country: 

State regional bureaus prioritize proposals for the countries within 
their region and assess whether proposals are compatible with overall 
foreign policy for those countries: 

Ambassadors consider whether proposals would be supported by partner 
countries and if proposals are consistent with embassies' strategic 
goals: 

DOD/State Coordination: FY06 Proposal Submission and Approval Process 
Built in State and DOD Coordination: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: DOD. 

Note: For FY07, State included the Office of Director of U.S. Foreign 
Assistance in the review process; presidential approval is no longer 
required. 

[End of figure] 

Accountability * Integrity * Reliability: 

DOD/State Coordination: State and DOD Developed a Coordinated Process 
for Reviewing Proposals: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: DOD: 

[End of figure] 

State and DOD staff review and prioritize all proposals regardless of 
origin: 

Senior State and DOD officials meet to approve vetted proposals to 
present to the Secretaries of Defense and State: 

78 proposals submitted for FY07 at a total cost of about $800 million: 

DOD/State Coordination: Coordination Between COCOMs and Embassies 
Appears to Have Improved in FY07: 

Country: Lebanon; 
FY06 Projects: Reducing Hezbollah's Operational Space; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): CENTCOM; 
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM; 
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): Yes; 
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): Yes; 
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes. 

Country: Pakistan; 
FY06 Projects: Improving Counterterrorism Strike Capabilities; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): CENTCOM; 
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM; 
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): Yes; 
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): Yes; 
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes. 

Country: Yemen; 
FY06 Projects: Countering Cross-Border Terrorism Activity; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): CENTCOM; 
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM; 
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): Yes; 
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): Yes; 
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Mixed. 

Country: Algeria; 
FY06 Projects: Trans-Sahara African Countries: Securing the Region 
Against Terrorists; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM; 
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM; 
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): No; 
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): No; 
Improved Coordination for FY07?: No. 

Country: Chad; 
FY06 Projects: Trans-Sahara African Countries: Securing the region 
against terrorists; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM; 
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM; 
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): No; 
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): No; 
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes. 

Country: Nigeria[1]; 
FY06 Projects: Trans-Sahara African Countries: Securing the region 
against terrorism; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM; 
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM; 
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): No; 
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): No; 
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes. 

Country: Nigeria[2]; 
FY06 Projects: Countering Threats to U.S. Energy Security; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM; 
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM; 
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): No; 
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): Yes; 
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes. 

Country: Sao Tome and Principe; 
FY06 Projects: Countering Threats to U.S. Energy; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM; 
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM; 
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): No; 
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): No; 
Improved Coordination for FY07?: yes. 

Country: Senegal; 
FY06 Projects: Trans-Sahara African Countries: Securing the region 
against terrorism; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM; 
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM: 
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): No; 
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): No; 
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes. 

Country: Indonesia; 
FY06 Projects: Securing Strategic Sea Lanes; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): PACOM; 
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM; 
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): Yes; 
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): Yes; 
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes. 

Country: Sri Lanka; 
FY06 Projects: Reducing ungoverned maritime spaces; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): PACOM; 
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM; 
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): Yes; 
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): Yes; 
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes. 

Country: Thailand; 
FY06 Projects: Securing Strategic Sea lanes; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): PACOM; 
Proposal Origin (FY06): Embassy; 
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): No; 
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): Yes; 
Improved Coordination for FY07?: No FY07 Proposal. 

Country: Dominican Republic; 
FY06 Projects: Caribbean Basin: Forward Defense of the U.S. Homeland; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): SOUTHCOM; 
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM; 
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): No; 
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): No; 
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes. 

Country: Panama; 
FY06 Projects: Caribbean Basin: Forward Defense of the U.S. Homeland; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): SOUTHCOM; 
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM; 
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): No; 
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): Yes; 
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes. 

Country: Morocco; 
FY06 Projects: Trans-Sahara African Countries: Securing the Region 
Against Terrorists; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM; 
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM; 
Embassy contact was unable to identify staff familiar with Section 1206 
project. 

Country: Tunisia; 
FY06 Projects: Trans-Sahara African Countries: Securing the Region 
Against Terrorists; 
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM; 
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM; 
No response from Embassy. 

Source: GAO analysis of State and DOD agency data: 

[End of table] 

DOD/State Coordination: Coordination Between COCOMs and Embassies 
Appears to Have Improved in FY07: 

CENTCOM: 

Lebanon: The SAO at the embassy developed FY06 and FY07 proposals with 
ambassador support before submission by CENTCOM or joint review. 

Pakistan: The SAO at the embassy developed FY06 and FY07 proposals with 
ambassador support before submission by CENTCOM. The embassy also 
submitted the FY07 proposal through State Department channels. 

Yemen: The SAO at the embassy developed the FY06 and FY07 proposals in 
coordination with the embassy pol-econ officer. The ambassador 
supported the proposals before CENTCOM submitted them for joint review. 

--The Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa in Djibouti developed a 
regional FY07 proposal involving Yemen. The embassy was not aware of 
this proposal until after submission by CENTCOM. 

CENTCOM officials stated that, except for the regional proposal, SAOs 
at the embassies developed all FY07 proposals, which would ensure 
coordination with State since they are part of embassy country teams. 

Coordination Between COCOMs and Embassies Appears to Have Improved in 
FY07: 

EUCOM: 

Algeria: EUCOM did not brief embassy staff on the FY06 Trans-Sahara 
proposal until September 27, 2006 at which point the embassy rejected 
Algeria's participation because of diplomatic concerns. 

Chad: EUCOM did not brief embassy staff on the FY06 Trans-Sahara 
proposal until after it had been approved and funded. The SAO at the 
embassy voiced concerns about the proposal and is awaiting a status 
report from EUCOM. 

Nigeria (Gulf of Guinea): The proposal resulted from an existing 
maritime security initiative in which the Ambassador was involved. 
EUCOM briefed the ambassador on the 1206 proposal after submission. 

*Nigeria (Trans-Sahara): EUCOM did not brief embassy staff on the 
proposal until August 2006, and the embassy is awaiting an update from 
EUCOM. 

Sao Tome and Principe: Embassy did not know about the Gulf of Guinea 
program involving Sao Tome and Principe until after EUCOM submitted the 
proposal for review. EUCOM briefed embassy about proposal in June 2006 
and gained support from ambassador before congressional notification. 

Senegal: EUCOM did not brief embassy staff on the Trans-Sahara proposal 
until October 2006, at which point the embassy cited concerns about the 
project's sustainability. The embassy is waiting to hear from EUCOM 
about how it will address these issues. 

EUCOM officials stated that for F Y07, they provided documentation of 
coordination and evidence of ambassador support for all proposals, as 
instructed in F Y07 guidance. 

--Embassy staff from Chad, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, and Senegal 
said that EUCM coordinated with the embassy prior to submitting FY07 
proposals. 

DOD/State Coordination: Coordination Between COCOMs and Embassies 
Appears to Have Improved in FY07: 

PACOM: 

Thailand: The SAO and political officer worked together to develop the 
FY06 proposal within 24 hours. They briefed PACOM after they submitted 
the proposal through State Department channels. 

Indonesia: The SAO developed the FY06 proposal in coordination with the 
embassy's 's pol-mil officer and forwarded it to PACOM for submission 
with the ambassador's endorsement. The SAO kept the ambassador informed 
throughout the process. 

Sri Lanka: The SAO developed the FY06 proposal and submitted it to 
PACOM with the support of the ambassador. During the development of the 
proposal, the AO briefed the ambassador and deputy chief of mission 
during weekly country team meetings. 

PACOM held a September 2006 planning meeting in Manila attended by SAOs 
and State pol-mil officers from several embassies to develop the 
regional proposal with support of embassies and PACOM before submission 
for joint review. 

All three embassies characterized coordination as effective in the 
development of an FY07 regional maritime security proposal. 

DOD/State Coordination: Coordination Between COCOMs and Embassies 
Appears to Have Improved in FY07: 

SOUTHCOM: 

Dominican Republic: The FY06 proposal involving the Dominican Republic 
provides funding for an existing maritime security initiative in the 
Caribbean known as "Enduring Friendship." The embassy support Enduring 
Friendship but was not aware of the FY06 Section1206 proposal to 
provide funding for it. SOUTHCOM briefed the embassy in September 2006, 
after congressional notification. 

Panama: The FY06 proposal involving Panama provides funding for the 
Enduring Friendship maritime security initiative. The SAO and 
ambassador had prior knowledge of the Enduring Friendship initiative, 
but they did not learn of the FY06 1206 proposal related to this 
initiative until June. The embassy supported the project once they 
learned about it. 

SOUTHCOM: SOUTHCOM tasked SAOs to oversee development of FY07 proposals 
and coordinate with embassy country teams to ensure that ambassadors 
supported proposals before submission. 

DOD/State Coordination: 

Coordination Between COCOMs and Embassies Appears to Have Improved in 
FY07: 

COCOMs and embassies had more time to formulate proposals in FY07 (two 
months compared to one or two weeks in FY06): 

FY07 guidance and template for submitting proposals emphasized 
coordination between COCOMs and State entities in the field and asked 
for documentation of coordination: 

Program Implementation: 1206 Programs Will be Implemented in Same 
Manner as FMF Program: 

DSCA will establish an FMS case for equipment to be provided as it 
would under the FMF program: 

* DSCA uses unique 1206 code for fiscal tracking: 

* SAOs at embassies will implement 1206 programs along with other 
security assistance programs: 

Embassies will apply same human rights vetting procedures to 1206 as to 
other programs: 

SAOs will coordinate implementation with embassy and COCOM: 

No 1206-specific agency guidance on assessment: 

* 1206 programs would likely be included in existing embassy and COCOM 
assessments of security goals: 

Concluding Observations: 

State and DOD appear to have developed a coordinated process for 
reviewing and approving proposals: 

Discussions with COCOMs and embassies indicated that coordination 
improved in FY07: 

Poor coordination was more common for regional proposals: 

Too soon for assessment of 1206 program's impact on security 
cooperation and foreign policy goals: 

[End of section] 

Enclosure II: Section 1206 Fiscal Year 2006 Project Descriptions 
(Dollars in millions): 

Project name: Caribbean Basin: Forward Defense of the U.S. Homeland 
($14.4); 
Countries involved: Dominican Republic, Panama; 
Project description/Objectives: Provides interoperable communications 
and computers with training and technical support to establish a joint 
maritime command, control, and communications architecture to support 
counterterrorism operations. 

Project name: Gulf of Guinea: Countering Threats to U.S. Energy 
Security ($6.8); 
Countries involved: Nigeria,; Sao Tome and Principe; 
Project description/Objectives: Establishes a Regional Maritime 
Awareness Capability through the use of commercially available 
equipment; promotes stability and enhances counterterrorism 
capabilities. 

Project name: Indonesia: Securing Strategic Sea Lanes ($18.4); 
Countries involved: Indonesia; 
Project description/Objectives: Assists in developing an Integrated 
Maritime Surveillance System to support maritime security in Indonesia, 
including the Malacca Strait, and facilitates counterterrorism 
operations. 

Project name: Lebanon: Reducing Hezbollah's Operational Space ($10.5); 
Countries involved: Lebanon; 
Project description/Objectives: Helps the Lebanese Armed Forces bolster 
the government of Lebanon's ability to exert control over its territory 
and reduce the operational space of militias such as Hezbollah. 

Project name: Pakistan: Improving Counterterrorism Strike Capabilities 
($23.3); 
Countries involved: Pakistan; 
Project description/Objectives: Helps develop integrated rotary wing 
assets capable of expediting the receipt, analysis, and dissemination 
of intelligence. Facilitates the rapid planning and execution of 
Pakistani counterterrorist special operations raids in the Federally 
Administered Tribal Areas and border region to fight terrorists and 
anti-coalition militants. 

Project name: Sri Lanka: Reducing Ungoverned Maritime Spaces ($10.9); 
Countries involved: Sri Lanka; 
Project description/Objectives: Promotes the development of a 
Counterterrorism Maritime Security Capability. 

Project name: Thailand: Securing Strategic; Sea Lanes ($5.3); 
Countries involved: Thailand; 
Project description/Objectives: Helps establish an intelligence fusion 
hub critically located on the Andaman Sea to support Royal Thai Navy 
operations and enhance counterterrorism capabilities.[A]. 

Project name: Trans-Sahara African Countries: Securing the Region 
Against Terrorists ($6.2); 
Countries involved: Algeria, Chad, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, Tunisia; 
Project description/Objectives: Helps develop a secure multinational 
information sharing network to share and store information effectively. 
Enables countries to act on information that is essential to disrupt 
and attack terrorist networks, and conduct peace and security 
operations. 

Project name: Yemen: Countering Cross-Border Terrorist Activity ($4.3); 
Countries involved: Yemen; 
Project description/Objectives: Helps increase the capability of the 
Yemeni Armed Forces to prevent cross- border arms trafficking and helps 
suppress terrorist activity. 

Source: DOD: 

[A] This project was canceled in September 2006 because of a coup in 
Thailand. When the project was canceled, $5.3 million had already been 
contracted for equipment. According to the Defense Security Cooperation 
Agency, the disposition of this equipment had not been determined. 

[End of table] 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] National Defense Authorization Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-163,  
1206. 119 Stat. 3136, 3456-58 (2006). 

[2]  1206. 

[3] Id. 

[4] Id. 

[5] Id. 

[6] Id. 

[7] John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 
109-364, 120 Stat. 2083, 2418 (2006). 

[8] Id. 

[9] The Section 1206 project involving Thailand was canceled, and other 
security assistance programs were suspended, following the September 
19, 2006, coup d'etat in that country. 

[10] State-funded security assistance programs include the Foreign 
Military Financing (FMF) program, which provides grants and loans to 
foreign governments for the acquisition of U.S. defense equipment, 
services, and training, and the International Military Education and 
Training (IMET) program, which provides training to foreign military 
and related civilian personnel. 

[11] Although 15 countries were included in projects selected for 
funding in fiscal year 2006, Nigeria participated in two different 
projects, resulting in 16 instances in which coordination should have 
occurred. During the course of our work, we were unable to contact 
knowledgeable officials at two embassies. Consequently, we were only 
able to determine if coordination occurred in 14 instances. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. 
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, 
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 
512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: