Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance
Curt Tarnoff
Specialist in Foreign Affairs
October 1, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40699
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance

Summary
The U.S. program of assistance to Afghanistan is intended to stabilize and strengthen the Afghan
economic, social, political, and security environment so as to blunt popular support for extremist
forces in the region. Since 2001, nearly $37 billion has been appropriated toward this effort.
More than half of U.S. assistance—roughly 51%—has gone to the training and equipping of
Afghan forces. The remainder has gone to development and humanitarian-related activities from
infrastructure to private sector support, governance and democratization efforts, and counter-
narcotics programs.
Key U.S. agencies providing aid are the Department of Defense, the Agency for International
Development, and the Department of State.
In June 2009, Congress approved the FY2009 supplemental appropriations (P.L. 111-32, H.R.
2346), closely following the Administration request for Afghanistan aid. The legislation provides
$861 million in the Economic Support Fund (ESF); $133 million in the International Narcotics
and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account; $3.6 billion in the Afghan Security Forces Fund
(ASFF); and $453 million in the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP), the latter
to be shared with Iraq.
On May 7, 2009, the Administration submitted an FY2010 budget request to Congress. It would
provide $2.8 billion in economic assistance under the State, Foreign Operations budget, mostly
composed of $2.2 billion in ESF and $450 million in INCLE funds. On July 9, 2009, the full
House approved H.R. 3081 (H.Rept. 111-187), the FY2010 State, Foreign Operations
Appropriations, providing $2.1 billion in ESF and $420 million in INCLE funds to Afghanistan,
and the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1434, its version of the FY2010
appropriations (S.Rept. 111-44), providing $2.15 billion in ESF and $450 million in INCLE funds
to Afghanistan.
The DOD appropriations request for FY2010 includes $7.5 billion for the ASFF and $1.5 billion
for the CERP, the latter shared with Iraq. In the House-approved H.R. 3326, $7.5 billion was
provided for the ASFF and $1.3 billion for the CERP. In the Senate Appropriations Committee-
approved S. 1390, $6.6 billion was recommended for the ASFF and $1.2 billion for the CERP.
This report provides a “big picture” overview of the U.S. aid program and congressional action. It
describes what various aid agencies report they are doing in Afghanistan. It does not address the
effectiveness of their programs. It will be updated as events warrant.
For discussion of the Afghan political, security, and economic situation, see CRS Report
RL30588, Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, by Kenneth
Katzman. For greater detail on U.S. security assistance provided by the Department of Defense,
see CRS Report R40156, War in Afghanistan: Strategy, Military Operations, and Issues for
Congress, by Catherine Dale. For fuller information on U.S. counter-narcotics efforts in
Afghanistan, see CRS Report RL32686, Afghanistan: Narcotics and U.S. Policy, by Christopher
M. Blanchard.

Congressional Research Service

---

Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance

Contents
Most Recent Developments......................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
U.S. Assistance Programs............................................................................................................ 2
Development Assistance Programs ........................................................................................ 4
Infrastructure .................................................................................................................. 4
National Solidarity Program............................................................................................ 5
Economic Growth ........................................................................................................... 5
Agriculture...................................................................................................................... 5
Health ............................................................................................................................. 6
Education........................................................................................................................ 6
Democracy and Governance............................................................................................ 6
Rule of Law .................................................................................................................... 7
Women and Girls ............................................................................................................ 7
Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP)..................................................... 7
Humanitarian Assistance Programs ....................................................................................... 8
Counter-Narcotics Programs ................................................................................................. 8
Security Assistance Programs................................................................................................ 9
Afghan Security Forces Fund .......................................................................................... 9
Other Security Programs ................................................................................................. 9
Congress and U.S. Assistance.................................................................................................... 12
FY2009 Regular and “Bridge” Appropriations .................................................................... 12
FY2009 Supplemental......................................................................................................... 13
House Action on Afghanistan FY2009 Supplemental Assistance.................................... 15
Senate Action on Afghanistan FY2009 Supplemental Assistance ................................... 15
Conference Report on FY2009 Supplemental ................................................................ 16
FY2010 Regular Appropriations Request ............................................................................ 16
House Action on FY2010 Aid to Afghanistan ................................................................ 17
Senate Action on FY2010 Aid to Afghanistan................................................................ 17
Major Conditions and Reporting Requirements on Afghan Aid............................................ 17

Tables
Table 1. U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan, by Fiscal Year ............................................................. 10
Table 2. FY2009 Supplemental and Afghanistan Aid: Request and Conference Report .............. 14

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 18
Key Afghanistan Assistance Policy Staff ................................................................................... 18

Congressional Research Service

---

Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance

Most Recent Developments
On September 10, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved S. 1390, providing $6.6 billion
for the ASFF and $1.2 billion for the CERP.
On July 30, the House approved H.R. 3326, the DOD appropriations, providing $7.5 billion for
the ASFF and $1.3 billion for the CERP.
On July 9, 2009, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1434, its version of the
FY2010 State, Foreign Operations Appropriations (S.Rept. 111-44), providing $2.15 billion in
ESF and $450 million in INCLE funds to Afghanistan.
On July 9, 2009, the House approved H.R. 3081 (H.Rept. 111-187), the FY2010 State, Foreign
Operations Appropriations, providing $2.1 billion in ESF and $420 million in INCLE funds to
Afghanistan.
In June 2009, Congress approved the FY2009 supplemental appropriations (P.L. 111-32, H.R.
2346), closely following the Administration request for Afghanistan aid. The legislation provides
$861 million in ESF—$22 million above the request; $133 million in INCLE—$4 million above
the request; and matching the request with $3.6 billion for the ASFF and $453 million for the
CERP (the latter to be shared with Iraq).
On May 7, 2009, the Administration submitted an FY2010 budget request to Congress. It would
provide $2.8 billion in economic assistance under the State, Foreign Operations budget, mostly
composed of $2.2 billion in ESF and $450 million in INCLE funds. The Defense appropriations
request for FY2010 includes $7.5 billion for the ASFF and $1.5 billion for the CERP, the latter
shared with Iraq.
On March 11, 2009, the President signed into law P.L. 111-8, the FY2009 Omnibus
appropriations, providing “no less than” $1 billion in regular FY2009 economic assistance
(Division H) to Afghanistan.
Introduction
Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries in the world, would be a candidate for U.S.
development assistance under normal circumstances. But today, as a result of the war on Al
Qaeda and the 2001 military effort that removed Taliban rule, Afghanistan is a U.S. strategic
priority and recipient to date of nearly $37 billion in U.S. foreign assistance serving multiple
objectives. About two-thirds of this assistance has been provided since the beginning of FY2007.
Assistance efforts are broadly intended to stabilize and strengthen the country, through a range of
development-related programs and through training and materiel support for the Afghan police
and military.
This report provides a “big picture” overview of the U.S. aid program and congressional action. It
describes what various aid agencies report they are doing in Afghanistan. It does not address the
effectiveness of their programs. It will be updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance

For discussion of the Afghan political, security, and economic situation, see CRS Report
RL30588, Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, by Kenneth
Katzman. For greater detail on U.S. security assistance provided by the Department of Defense,
see CRS Report R40156, War in Afghanistan: Strategy, Military Operations, and Issues for
Congress, by Catherine Dale. For fuller information on U.S. counter-narcotics efforts in
Afghanistan, see CRS Report RL32686, Afghanistan: Narcotics and U.S. Policy, by Christopher
M. Blanchard.
U.S. Assistance Programs
The U.S. program of assistance to Afghanistan has multiple objectives implemented by a range of
actors working in diverse sectors. The main purpose of the program is to stabilize and strengthen
the Afghan economic, social, political, and security environment so as to blunt popular support
for extremist forces in the region.
The bulk of U.S. assistance is in security-related activities. Since 2001, about half of total U.S.
assistance has gone to the Afghan Security Forces Fund (ASFF), the account supporting the
training and equipping of Afghan security forces. In FY2009, 61% is going to this security
purpose. A June 2009 DOD report on U.S. assistance puts security-related aid as comprising
52.0% of total aid since 2002 (not counting the FY2009 supplemental).1
The second-largest portion of assistance has been aimed at economic and social development
efforts, roughly 27.1% of total aid since 2002. The main provider of these programs is the Agency
for International Development (USAID). A third element of assistance, humanitarian aid, largely
implemented through USAID and international organizations, accounts for about 8.0% of total
aid, according to the DOD report.
The fourth main component of the aid program, democracy and governance, represents 4.4% of
total assistance since 2002. These programs are usually implemented by both USAID and the
Department of State. Another major State Department activity, in conjunction with DOD, USAID,
and the Drug Enforcement Agency, and a fifth element of the aid program, counter-narcotics,
accounts for about 8.6% of total aid.
U.S. assistance must be viewed within the broader context of the Afghan government’s
development strategy and the contributions of other donors. In April 2008, an Afghanistan
National Development Strategy (ANDS) was offered by the government as a program of specific
goals and benchmarks in 18 sectors from security to poverty reduction to be accomplished from
2008 to 2013. The Afghan government estimated the cost of achieving these goals at $50 billion,
with Afghanistan providing $6.8 billion and international donors asked to provide the rest. The
strategy sought to have most funds provided through the central government in order to
strengthen its legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens. Persistent questions regarding corruption and
the ability of the government to effectively implement programs have prevented donors from
more fully adopting this approach.

1 Proportion of aid sector figures are derived from data in Department of Defense, Progress toward Security and
Stability in Afghanistan, June 2009 Report to Congress, p. 65.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance

Of the $58.2 billion pledged in assistance to Afghanistan by donors since 2002, U.S. assistance
represents about 57%.2 However, these numbers are questionable, as the June 2009 DOD report
notes that much of $20 billion pledged in a June 2008 Paris Conference, and included in these
totals, had been previously pledged, leaving only about $14 billion in new pledges.3 Apart from
the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and Japan, the bulk of aid contributions comes from
the other NATO nations operating in the country as part of the International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF). For related discussion, see CRS Report RL33627, NATO in Afghanistan: A Test of
the Transatlantic Alliance, by Vincent Morelli and Paul Belkin. The United Nations Mission in
Afghanistan (UNAMA) is meant to play a major role coordinating aid from all donors. For details
on its role, see CRS Report R40747, United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan:
Background and Policy Issues, by Rhoda Margesson.
Fourteen NATO countries lead the 26 Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) located in the
majority of Afghan provinces. The United States leads 12 of these. An innovation in the delivery
of assistance that facilitates access to more remote regions of the country, the PRT is a significant
element in the U.S. aid program (and was later adopted and modified for Iraq). Its mission is to
help extend the authority of the Government of Afghanistan by fostering a secure and stable
environment. PRT personnel work with government officials to improve governance and
provision of basic services. PRTs are composed of both civilian and military personnel in
conjunction with military forces providing physical security. In the case of the United States—the
model differs by lead country—PRTs, with one exception, are led by a military officer and report
up a military chain of command. They have a predominance of military staff—generally only
three to five civilians among 50 to 100 total personnel. The civilians usually include at least one
from the State Department, one from USAID, and one from Department of Agriculture. As of
January 2009, there were 1,021 military staff and 35 civilian in all U.S. PRTs in Afghanistan.4 A
USAID representative is also often posted in the non-U.S. led PRTs. Civilian representation in the
PRTs, as in the country generally, is expected to “surge” in the coming year. Also, creation of an
additional 8 to 10 new U.S.-led PRTs is anticipated, with possible new varieties of civilian
assistance teams introduced.5
The U.S. PRTs utilize funding under two main programs to meet their objectives—DOD’s
Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP), discussed below, and USAID’s Local
Governance and Community Development Program. Both programs provide targeted
infrastructure aid to meet locally identified needs and aid to address employment and other local
concerns. The USAID program also provides management training to local government
personnel. Most other U.S. assistance is provided through the U.S. mission in Kabul. Working
throughout the country, aid project implementors in most cases are either U.S. or Afghan non-
governmental organizations receiving grants or private sector for-profit entities on contract.

2 SIGAR, Quarterly Report to Congress, April 30, 2009, p. 45.
3 DOD, Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan, June 2009 Report to Congress, p. 48.
4 SIGAR, Quarterly Report to Congress, January 30, 2009, pp. 48-57.
5 According to the State Department and USAID FY2009 supplemental justification, the FY2009 supplemental would
begin to fund an increase of State personnel of 173 U.S. staff and 33 local staff in Kabul, and 110 U.S. temporary posts
and 73 local staff in PRTs. It would also support an increase of USAID personnel of 150 U.S. staff and 200 locals.
Additional staff from other agencies are also expected. In addition to new PRTs, under consideration are a regional
embassy office in Herat, district reconstruction teams “to provide capacity building at the district level,” tribal
engagement teams, and fly-away teams “to assess needs rapidly and organize community programs for essential
services” (Department of State, FY2009 Supplemental Justification, p. 11).

Congressional Research Service
3

---

Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance

Despite significant political progress in Afghanistan during the past eight years—a new
constitution and successful presidential elections in 2004, parliamentary elections in 2005—and
increased personal freedom for Afghan citizens, especially the participation of women in
economic and political life, insurgent threats to Afghanistan’s government have escalated since
2006 to the point that some experts began questioning the success of stabilization efforts. An
expanding militant presence in some areas previously considered secure, increased numbers of
civilian and military deaths, growing disillusionment with corruption in the government of
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and Pakistan’s inability to prevent Taliban and other militant
infiltration into Afghanistan led the Obama Administration to conduct its own “strategic review,”
the results of which were announced on March 27, 2009.
The thrust of the new strategy is a focus not only on adding U.S. troops—although at least 21,000
are being added in 2009—but also on enhancing steps such as economic development and
coordination among international donors, building local governing structures, building capacity
and reforming the Afghan government, expanding and reforming the Afghan security forces, and
trying to improve Pakistan’s efforts to curb militant activity on its soil. In practice, the strategy is
leading to an increase in U.S. assistance to Afghanistan, a greater emphasis on geographic centers
of instability along the southern and eastern borders, and a significant increase in civilian aid
personnel to formulate, administer, and monitor appropriate development programs.
Following the flawed presidential election in Afghanistan, the whole U.S. strategy in Afghanistan
is currently undergoing an extensive review that, again, could lead to a major alteration in the
U.S. assistance program.
Below is a menu of the range of assistance programs the United States is now implementing in
Afghanistan.6
Development Assistance Programs
As one of the lesser-developed countries in the world, battered by decades of war and instability,
Afghanistan could benefit from assistance in every aspect of its political, economic, and social
fabric. U.S. development assistance programs, mostly implemented through the Agency for
International Development, are directed at a wide range of needs.
Infrastructure
As much as a quarter of total USAID assistance to Afghanistan to date has gone to road
construction throughout the country. As of September 2008, USAID had constructed or
rehabilitated over 1,650 miles of roads—with a particular focus on the Ring Road, which spans
the country—facilitating commercial activity and helping reduce time and costs in the transport
and mobility of security forces. Substantial additional road construction has been undertaken by
DOD as well as other international donors.

6 The program breakdown in this section largely draws on USAID project descriptions, many available at
http://afghanistan.usaid.gov; Department of Defense Reports to Congress, Progress Toward Security and Stability in
Afghanistan, most recently January 2009; and Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction Quarterly
Reports to Congress, most recently April 30, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance

Construction of a new 100-megawatt power plant in Kabul is one aspect of U.S. support for
electrical infrastructure. Another includes efforts to ensure that the national electric utility is
sustainable by improving rates of payment for services. It has outsourced operations,
maintenance, and billing to an international contractor, which has installed $14 million in meters,
hoping to significantly reduce losses. Other infrastructure efforts include support for a drilling
team to assess gas availability in the Sheberghan gas fields and funding the Kajaki dam
rehabilitation project in Helmand province that will increase output from 33 MW to 51 MW,
providing electricity for 2 million Afghans. Infrastructure construction activities in specific
sectors, such as health, education, governance, and security are noted below.
National Solidarity Program
Although its purpose is to strengthen Afghan governance at the local level and local ties to the
central government, the National Solidarity Program, to which the United States heavily
contributes and to which Congress has directed significant funding in explanatory statements
accompanying appropriations, has been chiefly employed to construct village infrastructure. The
Program is funded by international donors and implemented by the Ministry of Rural
Rehabilitation and Development. Community Development Councils (CDCs), established at the
grassroots level throughout the country with the help of international and local NGOs, apply for
program funds after first reaching consensus on village needs. As of April 2009, over 21,000
CDCs had been established. Program grants generally support drinking water and irrigation
systems, rural roads, school buildings and community centers, and electrification facilities.
Economic Growth
U.S. assistance supports a number of efforts to stimulate growth of the Afghan economy—the
most prominent part of which, agriculture, is discussed below. Projects to facilitate economic
growth in the broader business sector include the provision of technical expertise to help reform
the legal framework in which business operates, including taxation and administrative policies.
U.S. aid also seeks to improve access to credit for the private sector, through micro and small
business loans and by promoting bank reform to ease establishment of private banks. The
Treasury Department maintains advisers in the central bank. The United States attempts to build
business associations, such as chambers of commerce and the women’s business federation, by
providing training and development services to those emerging institutions. An economic growth
program that is of importance as well to agriculture is the effort to improve land titling, through
simplification of the registration process and assistance to commercial courts in land dispute
adjudication. Under USAID’s Rule of Law project, such assistance includes conducting
commercial law and dispute resolution training for judges, a seminar series on commercial law
for government officials, and assisting ministries in drafting commercial laws.
Agriculture
The United States supports two major and sometimes overlapping agriculture efforts. One
nationwide and another, under the rubric of alternative development, aimed at fostering legal
alternatives to poppy and targeted at specific areas where poppy is grown.
Among broad agriculture project efforts are the distribution of chickens, training in poultry
management, vaccination of livestock, establishment of Veterinary Field Units, seed distribution,
capacity building for extension services, and loans to farmers. The United States also assists in
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance

the establishment of food processing plants, such as flour mills and vegetable dehydration plants.
Infrastructure assistance to Afghan agriculture includes repair of farm-to-market roads and
rehabilitation of irrigation systems. USAID’s alternative development effort, the Alternative
Livelihoods Program, supports in poppy districts many of the same efforts it undertakes
throughout Afghanistan. It attempts to increase commercial agricultural opportunities for licit,
market-value crops and provides access to materials and expertise to produce those crops.
Most of these agriculture programs are implemented by USAID. However, two other agencies are
involved in this sector. USDA provides one advisor to each of the U.S.-run PRTs, through which
it seeks to build the capacities of provincial agricultural systems and assist local farmers. At the
national level, it provides technical expertise to the Agriculture Ministry, the agriculture extension
service, and agricultural associations, and works with the Ministry of Higher Education to
improve agriculture education. DOD fields Agriculture Development Teams, National Guard
personnel with backgrounds in agribusiness who provide training and advice to universities,
provincial ministries, and farmers.
Health
Health sector assistance, largely provided by USAID, has been aimed at expanding access to
basic public health care, including rehabilitation and construction of more than 600 clinics and
training of over 10,000 health workers. Health projects also address specific health concerns, such
as polio prevention and vulnerable children. Technical expertise is provided to the Ministry of
Health, which, some believe, is one of the few ministries considered sufficiently transparent to
handle donor funds.
Education
USAID supports a number of education efforts. Technical expertise has been provided to the
Ministry of Education and Ministry of Higher Education to build management capacities. More
than 600 schools have been constructed or rehabilitated and thousands of teachers trained. The
women’s dorm at the University of Kabul has been rehabilitated. The American University of
Afghanistan and the International School of Kabul have been established. Literacy programs are
being implemented nationwide.
Democracy and Governance
A wide range of U.S. assistance programs address the elements of democracy and government
administration. Democracy programs include efforts to support the development of civil society
non-governmental organizations. Afghan NGOs receive small grants, and training is provided to
their leadership and staff. Independent radio stations have been built with U.S. aid. At the national
level, a law facilitating NGO development was drafted with U.S. expertise. U.S. funds support the
2009 Presidential and Provincial Council elections, the Independent Elections Commission, and a
Civil Voter Registry.
U.S. assistance seeks to strengthen local and national government institutions through efforts to
build the competency of the civil service, increase the capacity of the National Assembly to draft
legislation, help the government identify problems and carry out policy, and improve delivery of
social services,
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance

Rule of Law
U.S. rule of law (ROL) programs are extensive and multiple agencies—the State Department’s
Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL), the Department of Justice,
USAID, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and DOD—are all involved to some extent in rule
of law issues. There is some overlap between agency programs; these efforts are coordinated
through the Kabul embassy Special Committee for Rule of Law, chaired by a Rule of Law
Coordinator. The embassy’s ROL Implementation Plan defines objectives for U.S. programs to
help meet the aims of the Afghan National Justice Program, the Afghan government’s own ROL
strategy.
Among other efforts, USAID seeks to improve legal education by assisting with a redesign of the
core curriculum for the Law and Sharia Faculties at Kabul University, and by providing training
in teaching methodology, legal writing, computer research, and legal English to members of
faculties of Kabul University and three regional universities. It provides training in substantive
and procedural law to sitting judges and trains trainers to continue such activities. Together, INL
and USAID programs have built or renovated 40 provincial courthouses and trained more than
900 sitting judges—over half of the judiciary—and more than 400 judicial candidates.
INL is principally concerned with reforming the criminal justice and corrections system. Its
Justice Sector Support Program supports 30 U.S. justice advisors and 35 Afghan legal consultants
who work together in provincial teams to address needs of key provinces. These have trained
about 1,900 Afghan justice professionals as of April 2009. INL also brings Afghan law professors
to the United States for degrees and U.S. Assistant Attorneys to Afghanistan. Its Corrections
Systems Support Program, addressing prison capacity issues, is building prisons in all 34
provinces and funds 30 U.S. corrections advisors who provide training and mentoring. As of April
2009, these had trained more than 3,800 Afghan corrections staff.
Women and Girls
Although much assistance is meant to ultimately benefit Afghans of both genders, in
appropriations legislation and report language, Congress often directs funding to programs
specifically assisting Afghan women and girls—most recently, requiring that at least $150 million
in total FY2009 funding from ESF and INCLE accounts be used for this purpose (P.L. 111-32,
section 1102).
Among these efforts is a USAID rule of law project that attempts to raise awareness of women’s
rights by conducting public forums and through discussion in the media. Pending is a USAID
plan to introduce legal rights education to women audiences and increase legal aid through legal
service centers. Another project provides financial support to NGOs working to improve the lives
of women and girls and seeks to strengthen their policy advocacy capacities. U.S. assistance also
is supporting the establishment of a Women’s Leadership Development Institute to train women
for leadership roles.
Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP)
Although, technically, the CERP is intended to improve the security environment in which U.S.
combat troops operate, it does this by offering small grants to local villages to address urgent
relief and reconstruction needs. While funded by DOD appropriations and implemented by the
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance

military, the CERP performs a development function, on the surface, indistinguishable from the
activities of USAID and is a major assistance tool of the U.S.-run Provincial Reconstruction
Teams. Most of the CERP has been used for infrastructure purposes—nearly two-thirds to date
has gone for road repair and construction alone.
Humanitarian Assistance Programs
U.S. funds address a number of humanitarian situations in Afghanistan, most stemming from the
years of war that preceded the U.S. intervention as well as the insurgency that has followed.
During this period, large numbers of people fled from their homes, many of whom became
refugees in neighboring countries. U.S. assistance in Afghanistan, provided through international
organizations and NGOs under the State Department’s Migration and Refugee Program and
through USAID’s International Disaster Assistance program, targets both those individuals who
are returning and those who have been displaced. According to the U.N. High Commissioner for
Refugees, there were an estimated 231,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 278,000
returning refugees in 2008. Roughly 3 million Afghans remain outside the country.
Where the insurgency is ongoing, assistance programs address the needs of affected vulnerable
populations. USAID’s Civilian Assistance Program provides assistance targeted to individuals or
communities directly affected by military incidents. Medical care to those injured, vocational
training to make up for loss of an income earner, and repair of damaged homes are among the
activities supported by the program. The NATO/ISAF Post-Operations Humanitarian Relief Fund,
to which the United States contributes, provides immediate food, shelter, and infrastructure repair
assistance following military actions. The DOD’s CERP also provides battle damage repair as
well as condolence payments for deaths or injury.
U.S. food assistance has been aimed at both short- and long-term food security needs. During the
2008-2009 drought, which led to a shortage of wheat, the United States contributed food aid.
Chronic malnutrition has been addressed in U.S. funding of a school feeding program
implemented by the World Food Program and a World Vision program aimed at children under
two years of age.
The United States also supports demining and disposal of other explosive ordinance remaining
from years of war. These efforts protect the civilian population and clear land that can be utilized
for agriculture.
Counter-Narcotics Programs
According to Administration officials, narcotics profits are a major source of funding for the
insurgency. Counter-narcotics efforts, therefore, are viewed as an intrinsic part of the U.S.
stabilization strategy. Counter-narcotics programs are managed through the State Department’s
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Bureau (INL), funded under the INCLE
account; through USAID’s alternative development program funded under the ESF account; and
through the DOD counternarcotics program account.
The United States supports a “5 Pillar Strategy” in addressing counter-narcotics concerns. First,
alternative development, noted above, is largely the USAID effort to develop other sources of
income for poppy farmers. In addition, INL funds a “good performers” initiative that offers
rewards to provinces that are making progress in reducing poppy cultivation. Second, a U.S.-
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance

supported Poppy Eradication Force seeks to eliminate poppy. Third, assistance seeks to build the
capacity of the Counternarcotics Police of Afghanistan and other forces to interdict heroin and
opium traffic. Fourth, a range of law enforcement and justice reform programs noted above
address the investigation and adjudication of drug trafficking cases. The fifth pillar is the raising
of public awareness through dissemination of information to farmers, opinion leaders, politicians,
and others. The March 27, 2009, strategic review suggested that greater emphasis be given to
alternative development and that eradication efforts be targeted less at the farmer and more at the
drug lords. Along with INL, the Department of Defense supports eradication and interdiction
efforts mostly by provision of equipment and weaponry to Afghan counternarcotics entities. See
CRS Report RL32686, Afghanistan: Narcotics and U.S. Policy, by Christopher M. Blanchard, for
further information.
Security Assistance Programs
Security assistance programs address the capabilities of the Afghan police, army, and other
security forces.
Afghan Security Forces Fund
Most U.S. security assistance efforts are funded through the Afghan Security Forces Fund
(ASFF), an account supported under the DOD appropriations. At $18.7 billion, the ASFF
accounts for 51% of total U.S. assistance to Afghanistan since FY2001.
The United States provides equipment, training, and mentoring to police and army forces and
works with responsible Afghan ministries—Interior and Defense—to ensure they are capable of
organizing and leading these forces. The total Afghan National Security Force level of roughly
167,000 is expected to rise to 220,800 by 2011. For discussion, see CRS Report R40156, War in
Afghanistan: Strategy, Military Operations, and Issues for Congress, by Catherine Dale, and CRS
Report RL30588, Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, by Kenneth
Katzman.
Other Security Programs
The State Department’s Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs
(NADR) account supports a program for the training and equipping of the Afghan Presidential
protection service, which protects the Afghan leadership and diplomats. It also funds counter-
terrorist finance and terrorist interdiction efforts. The International Military Education and
Training Program (IMET), co-managed by the State Department and DOD, exposes select Afghan
officers to U.S. practices and standards.

Congressional Research Service
9

---

Table 1. U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan, by Fiscal Year
(appropriations in $ millions)
2001-
2009
Fiscal
Year
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2009d
Total
Economic Support Fund (ESF)
117.5 239.3 896.6 1,240.6 473.4 1,210.7 1,399.5 2,048.0 7,625.6
Development Assistance (DA)
18.3 42.5 153.5 169.2 191.2 166.8 148.7 0.0 890.2
Child Survival/Health (CSH)
7.5 49.7 31.0 38.0 41.5 100.8 63.5 57.7
389.7
MRA (Migration & Refugee Asst.)
160.6 63 67.1 47.1 41.8 54.0 43.5 50.2a
527.3
Food Aidb
213.3 75.8 99 96.7 108.3 69.5 232.4 78.3a
973.3
INCLE (Int’l Narcotics & Law Enforcement)
60.0 0.0 220.0 709.3 232.7 251.7 307.6 484.0
2,265.3
NADR (Nonprolif, Anti-Terror, De-mining)
44.0 34.8 63.8 36.6 18.2 36.6 26.6 36.6a
297.2
Int’l Military Education & Training (IMET)
0.2 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.4 6.9
Foreign Military Financing (FMF)
57.0 191.0 413.7 396.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1,058.5
Otherc
229.7 103.2 47.0 18.1 0.6 1.4 0.0 5.7
405.7
Total 150 Account
908.1
799.6
1,992.3
2,753.2
1,108.5
1,892.7
2,223.4
2,761.9 14,439.7
DOD - Afghan Security Forces Fund (ASFF)
0.0
0.0
0.0 995.0 1,908.1 7,406.4 2,750.0 5,606.9
18,666.4
DOD - CERPf
0.0 0.0 39.7 134.0 215.0 208.8 486.3 535.0
1,618.8
DOD - Other
0.0 165.0 356.8 764.5 108.1 291.0 84.7 199.5
1,969.6
Total 050 Account
0.0
165.0
396.5
1,893.5
2,231.2
7,906.2
3,321.0
6,341.4 22,254.8
Other Functional Accountse
0.6
2.9
3.7
16.8
23.7
20.4
40.6
18.8
127.5
Total U.S. Assistance
908.7
967.5
2,392.5
4,663.5
3,363.4
9,819.3
5,585.0
9,122.1 36,822.0
Sources: SIGAR Report to Congress, July 30, 2009; Department of State annual budget presentation documents; and CRS calculations.
Notes: Totals may not add up due to rounding. The 150 budget function account encompasses International Affairs spending and is mostly appropriated in the
State/Foreign Operations bill; food aid is appropriated in the Agriculture appropriations. The 050 account is Defense appropriations. This table does not contain agency
operational costs, including USAID OE, USAID Capital Investment Fund, and IG Offices, except where these are embedded in the other accounts. Estimated costs to date
are an additional $161.1 million.
a. Funding level not specified in appropriations language or explanatory statement. Final allocation not available.
CRS-10

---

b. Includes P.L.480 Title II, Food for Education, Food for Progress, 416b Food Aid, Emerson Trust, and USAID CCC.
c. Other 150 account includes International Disaster Assistance, Office of Transition Initiatives, Treasury Technical Assistance, and Peacekeeping accounts.
d. FY2009 assistance includes $556 million specifically provided in the FY2009 bridge supplemental (P.L. 110-252)—$455 million in ESF and $101 million in INCLE—and
“no less than $1,041,950,000” provided in the FY2009 Omnibus, Division H (P.L. 111-8)—$732 million in ESF and rest unspecified. Where funds are earmarked by
account or allocation levels are available, they are entered under the appropriate account.
e. Other budget function accounts here include Drug Enforcement Administration anti-narcotics activities.
f.
Amounts for CERP based on reported al ocations to date. Total annual appropriations for CERP are provided to both Iraq and Afghanistan, usual y without country
earmark.


















CRS-11

---

Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance

Congress and U.S. Assistance
Although authorization of aid programs for a specific country are usually not required, in 2002,
Congress approved the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act (P.L. 107-327). It authorizes the full
range of economic assistance programs supporting the humanitarian, political, economic, and
social development of Afghanistan. A separate title (II) authorized support for the development of
the Afghanistan security forces; its authority expired at the end of September 2006. Since then,
security aid has been authorized in annual DOD authorization legislation.
Economic assistance to Afghanistan has been provided in most years since 2001 in both regular
appropriations and supplemental appropriations bills. Defense assistance has largely been
provided in emergency supplemental appropriations legislation. For FY2010, the Obama
Administration expects all aid to be provided under the regular appropriations. As noted in Table
1, most aid has been provided in accounts that fall under one of two budget functions. Most
economic and humanitarian aid, as well as IMET and the operational expenses of the Embassy,
the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, and USAID, is in the 150
International Affairs function, encompassed largely by the State, Foreign Operations
appropriations. Food aid, also under the 150 function, is provided in the Agriculture
appropriations bill. Most security aid, as well as the CERP, is in the 050 Defense budget function,
encompassed by the DOD appropriations.
FY2009 Regular and “Bridge” Appropriations
In February 2008, the Bush Administration requested $1.0 billion in State, Foreign Operations
FY2009 regular appropriations for Afghanistan—$52 million in USAID Child Survival/Health,
$707 million in ESF, $1.4 million in IMET, $250 million in INCLE, and $31.5 million in NADR
accounts. At the same time, it requested $12 million in P.L. 480 food aid from the Agriculture
appropriations.
In May 2008, the Administration also requested $3.7 billion for the ASFF and $1.7 billion for the
CERP (for both Iraq and Afghanistan) under DOD appropriations and $50 million in MRA, $175
million in INCLE and $750 million in ESF under State, Foreign Operations appropriations for an
emergency FY2009 “Bridge” fund. In June 2008, Congress approved P.L. 110-252, the FY2008
emergency supplemental which included the FY2009 “Bridge” funding, providing $455 million
in ESF (of which $20 million for the NSP, $35 million for election support, and $35 million for
rural development) but not specifying amounts from the INCLE and MRA accounts. The bill also
provided $2 billion to the ASFF. While CERP funds were not specifically appropriated in the
FY2009 portion of the bill, DOD has allocated $1 billion from the “bridge” for this purpose
(again, for both Iraq and Afghanistan).
In March 2009, Congress approved the FY2009 Omnibus appropriations (P.L. 111-8, H.R. 1105),
including the regular FY2009 State, Foreign Operations appropriations (Division H). It provided
“not less than $1,041,950,000” for Afghanistan economic aid programs (sec. 7077). According to
the explanatory statement that accompanied the bill, this amount included $732 million in ESF—
$12 million for the Afghan Civilian Assistance Program, $50 million for the National Solidarity
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance

Program, and $100 million for the programs benefitting Afghan women and girls.7 The
explanatory language also expressed support for vocational and higher education efforts. The bill
and explanatory language did not specify other amounts for Afghanistan, but funds have since
been allocated from the USAID Child Survival/Health, IMET, INCLE, and NADR accounts.
FY2009 Supplemental
In April 2009, the Administration submitted its FY2009 supplemental request to Congress. The
request reflected the Obama Administration’s new Afghanistan strategy by significantly
increasing economic aid to Afghanistan provided under the 150 account, State, Foreign
Operations appropriations portion of the proposed legislation. If the requested funds were
included, total FY2009 non-humanitarian economic aid to Afghanistan would amount to $2.6
billion, an increase of 32% ($631 million) over the previous year’s appropriations.
The newly requested funding for Afghanistan, totaling $980 million, would come from three
accounts—$839 million under the Economic Support Fund (ESF), $129 million under
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement account (INCLE), and $12 million under the
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, and Demining (NADR) account. More than a third of the new
funding would be devoted to improving governance at all levels of the Afghan government,
including anti-corruption and other efforts to strengthen the justice system. Substantively,
according to the Administration, the request also “represents a major shift” from short-and long-
term reconstruction and development activities scattered throughout all of Afghanistan to
programs “focused on countering the insurgency, primarily in the south and east.”8
The $839 million ESF request consisted of five components. Security-related programs, including
counternarcotics alternative development programs, stabilization projects targeting critical
districts, construction of district centers where citizens can meet with local officials, and quick
support projects delivered by Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) represented $214 million.
Governance programs, accounting for $295 million, include building the capacity of the Afghan
government at all levels, anti-corruption activities, election support, Ministry of Justice
assistance, and U.S. contributions to the World Bank’s Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund.
Providing basic services to vulnerable populations and creating short-term employment
opportunities amounted to $135 million. Economic growth efforts, totaling $170 million,
encompass projects in agriculture, monetary and fiscal policy reform, expansion of a central
business registry, creation of a national land registry, and micro and small business credit
activities. Funding of administration and oversight of these programs amounted to $25 million.
The $129 million INCLE program in Afghanistan would focus on counternarcotics programs ($46
million), including special assistance to communities adopting anti-narcotics policies to tide them
over until development efforts take effect and support to the Afghan Counternarcotics Advisory
Team; rule of law efforts ($78 million), including legal education, support for women prisoners,
and assistance to the Central Prison Directorate; and program administrative and oversight
support ($5 million). The $12 million NADR program would bolster the capacities of the Afghan
Presidential Protective Service.

7 Explanatory statement in the February 23, 2009 Congressional Record, p. H2413.
8 Department of State and USAID, FY2009 Supplemental Justification, p. 51.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance

Besides the economic assistance, the State, Foreign Operations portion of the request also
included $261.5 million in State Department Diplomatic and Consular Program account funds,
most of which would support operational expenses of the proposed civilian staff surge from
multiple agencies that would bring staff levels in Kabul up from 394 to 567 and expand PRT staff
by 110 temporary posts. Similarly, there was a $140 million request for USAID Operating
Expenses, funding 150 U.S. personnel and 200 local staff, most of which is meant to increase
USAID staff in the PRTs. In addition, $101.5 million would go to security protection for U.S.
facilities and personnel, and $87 million would go to embassy physical expansion to provide
room for new housing. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR)
request was for $7.2 million. In all, these operational expense requests amounted to about $600
million.
In addition to these State, Foreign Operations accounts, the Administration request included $3.6
billion in DOD appropriations for the Afghan Security Forces Fund (ASFF), which supports the
training and equipping of Afghan army and police. The Administration also asked that $125
million previously appropriated to the ASFF in the FY2009 “bridge” legislation be rescinded and
re-appropriated in the new FY2009 supplemental bill. In essence, this request was made in order
to extend availability of these funds. The “bridge” appropriation would have expired at end of
September 2009; with this new appropriation it would be available until end of September 2010.
The Administration’s $500 million request for the Commander’s Emergency Response Program
(CERP) was, as has been the case in the past, for both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Table 2. FY2009 Supplemental and Afghanistan Aid: Request and Conference Report
Conference Report
Request
(P.L. 111-32)
150 Foreign Operations Accounts
Economic
$839 million, of which:

$861 million, of which:

Support Fund
(ESF)
Security & Stabilization (PRT
$214
Afghan Civilian Assistance
$12 million
programs)
million
Program
Governance $295
Afghan Reconstruction Trust
$115 million
million
Fund
Social Services/Employment
$135
Agriculture $100
million
million
Economic Growth
$170
Alternative Development
$65 million
million
Program Support
$25 million
Widows Assistance
$5 million

Women
NGOs
$30
million

Unallocated
$534
million
International
$129 million, of which:

$133 million, of which:

Narcotics and
Law
Counter-narcotics Planning
$46 million
Good Performers Initiative
$23 million
Enforcement
Rule of Law
$78 million
Combating Violence Against
$10 million
(INCLE)
Women and Girls
Program Support
$5 million
Unallocated
$100 million
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance

Conference Report
Request
(P.L. 111-32)
Nonproliferation, $12 million
Level for Afghanistan not Specified
Anti-Terrorism,
Demining and

Related
Programs
(NADR)
Migration and
$7 million
Level for Afghanistan not Specified
Refugee
Assistance
(MRA)
050 DOD Accounts
Afghan Security
$3.6 billion
Coinciding with
$3.6 billion

Forces Fund
cancel ation of $125
(ASFF)
million from FY2009
“bridge” (P.L. 110-252).
Commander’s
$453 million
For both Iraq and
$453 million
For both Iraq and
Emergency
Afghanistan.
Afghanistan.
Response
Program (CERP)
Source: Department of State, OMB, and Conference Report (H.Rept. 111-151 on H.R. 2346).
House Action on Afghanistan FY2009 Supplemental Assistance
H.R. 2346, approved by the House on May 14, 2009, largely matched the Administration request
for economic assistance to Afghanistan. Bill language provided the requested $3.6 billion for the
ASFF. Explanatory language in the Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 111-105) would
provide the Administration request for the CERP ($453 million, shared with Iraq), NADR ($12
million), INCLE ($129 million), and ESF ($839 million) accounts. The report language broke out
the ESF in slightly different amounts and categories than the request—$70 million for the
National Solidarity Program, $159 million for the PRTs, $85 million for Agriculture, $55 million
for Alternative Development, $200 million of Economic Growth, $25 million for Elections, $115
million for Governance and Civil Society, and $20 million for Rule of Law.
The House bill would provide more in the State Department operating expense account, the
Diplomatic and Consular Program account, than the Administration requested—$448.9 million
instead of the $363 million request. Most of the difference is in staff expense allocations, as
opposed to security costs. The House provided $327.4 million for State and other agency staff
expenses, rather than the $261.5 million request. This was meant to support the proposed staff
surge—170 U.S. Direct Hires in Kabul, 251 temporary PRT staff, and 106 local staff, as well as
59 existing staff from other agencies (Agriculture, Treasury, etc.) and up to 73 new staff from
these agencies. The House bill matched the Administration request for USAID operating
expenses at $140 million and for the SIGAR at $7.2 million.
Senate Action on Afghanistan FY2009 Supplemental Assistance
The Senate version of the FY2009 supplemental, approved on May 21, would match the
Administration request for the NADR account ($12 million) and would slightly alter the request
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance

for ESF ($866 million vs. a request of $839 million), and INCLE ($133 million vs. a request of
$129 million). The Senate bill would also provide $25 million for MRA assistance to internally
displaced people and refugees versus a request of $7 million. The bill provided the requested
amount for the CERP and the ASFF, but did not cancel and re-appropriate the $125 million in
FY2009 “bridge” funds sought by the Administration.
The Senate bill provided $308.6 million for State D&CP staff operating expenses (vs. $261.5
million request) and $100 million for USAID operating expenses (vs. $140 million request). It
matched the $7.2 million request for the SIGAR.
Conference Report on FY2009 Supplemental
The conference report on H.R. 2346 closely follows the Administration request levels for most
accounts with regard to Afghanistan assistance (see Table 2). It provides $861 million in ESF—
$22 million above the request; $133 million in INCLE—$4 million above the request; and $3.6
billion for the ASFF and $453 million for the CERP (to be shared with Iraq), matching those
requests. Afghanistan funding levels for NADR and MRA accounts were not specified in the
conference report, but are likely to be allocated funds at the requested levels. Although the
explanatory statement (H.Rept. 111-151) accompanying the conference report broke down ESF
and INCLE accounts in a somewhat different form than the Administration, congressionally
mandated programs within these accounts are not likely to substantially alter the profile of the
planned assistance program. H.R. 2346 does not rescind and re-appropriate the $125 million
previously appropriated to the ASFF in the FY2009 “bridge” legislation.
Of special note, the legislation provides not less than $150 million of ESF and INCLE be used for
programs addressing the needs of women and girls. It requires that 10% of INCLE funds be
withheld until the Secretary of State reports that the Afghan government is taking steps to remove
officials engaged in narcotics or human rights crimes. It provides $70 million for the National
Solidarity Program.
The conference report provides $413.2 million in State Diplomatic and Consular Program
operating expenses vs. the $363 million requested. Half of the additional amount is an early
response to the FY2010 budget request for air transport needs of the Embassy. The Embassy
Security account, however, is allocated $67 million less than the request, due to concerns
regarding the plan to acquire land adjacent to the Embassy to meet civilian expansion needs. The
USAID Operating Expense account request of $140 million is met by the legislation as was the
SIGAR at $7.2 million.
FY2010 Regular Appropriations Request
On May 4, 2009, the Administration submitted an FY2010 budget request to Congress. The State,
Foreign Operations request includes $2.8 billion in economic aid to Afghanistan—mostly
consisting of $2.2 billion in ESF, $450 million in INCLE, $93.8 million under USAID’s Global
Health and Child Survival account, and $57.8 million in NADR funds. The total FY2010 foreign
operations request represents a roughly 6% increase from the total FY2009 level.
The DOD budget request for FY2010 includes $7.5 billion for the ASFF, a 33% increase over
total FY2009 appropriations. The Administration also requested $1.5 billion for the CERP, the
latter shared with Iraq.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance

House Action on FY2010 Aid to Afghanistan
On June 26, 2009, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 3081 (H.Rept. 111-187),
the FY2010 State, Foreign Operations Appropriations, providing $2.1 billion in ESF and $420
million in INCLE funds to Afghanistan. The full House approved the measure on July 9, 2009.
Among other things, the Committee report recommends not less than $175 million of ESF be
used for the National Solidarity Program; $175 million for programs for women and girls,
including $20 million to improve the capacity of women-led NGOs; not less than $25 million for
maternal and child health; and $15 million for USAID’s Civilian Assistance Program.
On July 30, the House approved H.R. 3326, the DOD appropriations, providing $7.5 billion for
the ASFF, matching the Administration request, and $1.3 billion for the CERP, a cut of $200
million from the request. The bill would withhold $500 million from the CERP until a review is
completed, including analysis of its management and oversight and the appropriate use of funds.
Senate Action on FY2010 Aid to Afghanistan
On July 9, 2009, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1434, its version of the
FY2010 State, Foreign Operations Appropriations (S.Rept. 111-44), providing $2.15 billion in
ESF and $450 million in INCLE funds to Afghanistan. Of the ESF, the committee directed that
$15 million go to the Civilian Assistance Program, $100 million to the National Solidarity
Program, $150 million for programs benefitting women and girls, and $10 million for strategic
communication activities highlighting the efforts of the Afghan government and international
partners to bring security, services, and the rule of law to the Afghan people. The committee
directed that two reports be submitted: one on the use of funds for Afghan women and girls, and
the other on steps being taken to standardize condolence payments.
On September 10, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved S. 1390, its version of the
DOD appropriations, providing $6.6 billion for the ASFF, a $900 million cut from the
Administration request, and $1.2 billion for the CERP, a $300 million cut from the request.
Major Conditions and Reporting Requirements on Afghan Aid
Congress has imposed conditions and reporting requirements on its authorization and
appropriations of aid. In both regular and supplemental FY2009 appropriations, conditions are
imposed on the INCLE account. No regular FY2009 funds (P.L. 111-8) are available for
eradication through aerial spraying of herbicides unless the Secretary of State determines that the
President of Afghanistan has requested such a program. Ten percent of the FY2009 supplemental
(P.L. 111-32) INCLE appropriations available to assist the Afghan government are withheld
pending a report from the Secretary of State that the Afghan central government is taking steps to
remove any official credibly alleged to have engaged in narcotics trafficking, gross violations of
human rights, or other major crimes. Congress also withholds $200 million in regular FY2009
ESF until the Secretary of State certifies that the Afghan government is cooperating fully with
U.S. poppy eradication and interdiction efforts. This latter condition may be waived on national
security grounds.
Among congressional reporting requirements, there are several of special note with regard to
assistance to Afghanistan. The 2008 Defense Authorization (section 1229, P.L. 110-181), which
established a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, requires the SIGAR to
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance

submit a quarterly report describing aid activities and funding. The same legislation (section
1230) requires DOD, in coordination with all other agencies, to submit a report every six months
on progress toward security and stability in Afghanistan, including descriptions of the ASFF,
PRTs, counter-narcotics activities, and other assistance matters. The FY2009 supplemental
(section 1117, P.L. 111-32) requires a report to be submitted by the President by March 30, 2010
and every six months thereafter, on the objectives of U.S. policy in Afghanistan with metrics to
assess progress, an assessment of progress by U.S. agencies, including the Departments of State,
Defense, Justice, and USAID, and recommendations for additional resources.

Author Contact Information

Curt Tarnoff

Specialist in Foreign Affairs
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov, 7-7656


Key Afghanistan Assistance Policy Staff

Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
USAID Development Assistance
Curt Tarnoff, Specialist in
77656 ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Foreign Affairs
Political, Economic, Social, and Security Kenneth Katzman,
77612 kkatzman@crs.loc.gov
Issues in Afghanistan and U.S. Policy
Specialist in Middle Eastern
Affairs
DOD assistance and Afghanistan
Steven Bowman, Specialist
75841 sbowman@crs.loc.gov
Security Forces Fund
in National Security
Counter-narcotics Programs
Christopher M. Blanchard,
70428 cblanchard@crs.loc.gov
Analyst in Middle Eastern
Affairs
Humanitarian Assistance, Refugees and
Rhoda Margesson,
70425 rmargesson@crs.loc.gov
IDPs, UNAMA/Civilian Reconstruction
Specialist in International
Humanitarian Policy
Rule of Law Programs
Liana Wyler, Analyst in
76177 lwyler@crs.loc.gov
International Crime and
Narcotics





Congressional Research Service
18

---