It feels good to be productive. As a Kansas farmer and rancher, I like the fact that I help transform air, water, and minerals into wheat and meat that can help sustain people. And as an agricultural advocate for Oxfam America, being productive means supporting sisters and brothers around the world to farm as I do and help feed their neighbors.

A US wheat field in Kansas. Photo via Flickr http://bit.ly/16AoUvd

An Ethiopian wheat field in Oromia. Photo: Eva-Lotta Jansson / Oxfam America

That’s why the reforms to US food aid are so important to me. As a member of the Farm Bureau, it’s also why I am so disappointed that the Farm Bureau would distort the need for those reforms in a recent editorial.

American Farm Bureau Federation President Stallman calls in to question the accountability and efficacy of using cash, rather than shipping food, when he writes that:

“Shipping a cargo load of food, rather than the money to buy food (if it is available), is the best and most secure way to ensure that taxpayer-funded international food assistance actually makes it to hungry people overseas.”

Really?!? When the distance between the US and the country we are supporting means an average of 130 days between procurement and delivery, I find this hard to believe. When over half of those taxpayer dollars that could be helping to feed people are siphoned away into the pockets of middlemen before one hungry child is fed, I’m concerned that there are many a slip between the cup and the lip.

Yes, I like to know that what I do as a farmer can help people to be fed around the world. But I don’t think that way when I consider that my “feeling good” (Stallman uses the word “pride” here) hurts the ability of other farmers in developing countries to feed themselves and their communities.

Mr. Stallman is concerned about “good international relations.” So am I. Consider the effects on a Haitian farmer with rice to sell when the earthquake hit in 2010, as “free” commodities flooded the local market in Port au Prince. This same question arises for crisis areas in other countries and their neighboring regions, where food is available, transport is closer, and markets are functioning.

The proposed reforms don’t eliminate US-produced commodities from being used for aid. In fact the majority of emergency food aid will remain in that form. But, these reforms are something of which the Farm Bureau should be “proud”.  First, they follow the conservative principle that public money needs to be used efficiently and seeks to achieve the greatest bang for the buck. Second, the reforms hope to take of advantage of and support existing markets by purchasing food locally or regionally when feasible.

From where I sit, overlooking my land on the Great Plains, US support of international agriculture has undercut neither our farmers, nor our national security over the decades. Some of the biggest markets for US commodities are in countries that used to struggle with food security. While emergency food aid may be a band-aid for a day, our support of long-term agricultural programs and market development helps create stability, more food, and new customers for our own goods.

Now that is the pathway to friendship—something we can feel good about for years to come.

“Exports via food aid are a small drop in the market…Our concern is less about decreasing an important revenue stream for U.S. agriculture. It’s more about the loss of a sense of pride.” ~Veronica Nigh, an economist with the American Farm Bureau Federation in 5/1 Reuters article

A vegetable seller measures bitter eggplants grown in Touba Ngembe for a customer in the village market of Ndiaganiao, Senegal. Photo: Rebecca Blackwell / Oxfam America

Dear Ms. Nigh and the American Farm Bureau,

We’re glad you’re proud of supplying the US food aid program. But there are millions of people around the world facing hunger and crisis who might appreciate it if you’d step aside and let Congress and our leaders improve the program.

The program is vital to address hunger around the world, but is desperately in need of reform. It’s inefficient, slow, wastes money, and as a result, doesn’t help nearly as many people as it could.

Maybe you could be gratified by doing the right thing, that is, making sure that food aid supports small farmers and local economies and is delivered more efficiently and effectively.

Doing so might actually help feed an additional 4 million people worldwide, which is truly something of which Americans could be proud.

Sincerely, Oxfam America

The President is moving towards putting more aid resources directly into the hands of local citizens around the world in his 2014 budget, particularly with regards to food aid reform.

Why does this matter? Changes to foreign assistance could mean more for farmers like Emiliana Aligaesha.

Photo: Brett Eloff / Oxfam America

Emiliana Aligaesha (pictured) formed a successful private company selling coffee and beans with her fellow community members in the Karagwe District of northwest Tanzania in 2007. They have become so successful that the World Food Programme is now a customer of the group, which is known as Kaderes Peasants Development Ltd. USAID, through the Karagwe Development and Relief Services, has been helping to guarantee better prices for Aligaesha and her fellow farmers.

Since 2008, Kaderes Peasant Development Ltd. (KPD) has sold 1600 tons of beans to the World Food Programme, ensuring that farmers benefit from more competitive prices. As part of their success, in 2012 the World Food Programme upgraded KPD’s status from a small supplier to a large supplier of food in the region.

Partnerships with local farmers offered through companies like Kaderes Peasants Development Ltd. saves the money and time it might take to bring the same food aid from the US or Europe, and, more importantly, ensures a market for hardworking and innovative farmers like Aligaesha. These purchases also have a multiplier effect as KPD uses profits to support other farmers with training, access to farming implements, and information on markets.

Despite these common-sense reforms to US food aid and US foreign assistance broadly, they have come under fire from vested interests in Washington and globally. The food aid reform fight is the latest in a series of reforms, led by the administration, to make foreign assistance much more effective.  The US government is identifying local partners where US foreign assistance can be used effectively, allowing the US to look in places they haven’t looked before. This is not just good policy; it’s the right thing to do with people like Aligaesha, whose company is exactly the type of supplier that the US government can support through steps towards local and regional procurement of food aid.

Emiliana Aligaesha and her fellow farmers in Karagwe, Tanzania formed a successful private company selling coffee and beans. The World Food Programme has been a customer and USAID has been helping to guarantee better prices. Photo: MaishaPlus2012 / Oxfam

Emiliana Aligaesha taught herself to farm when she became a widow and her teacher’s salary did not make ends meet. When Aligaesha found herself facing a lack of reliable markets, changing weather patterns, and a shortage of farming equipment, she joined forces with fellow farmers in her community to make sure they got the best prices for their produce. For example, in 2012 Kaderes Peasants Development Ltd. bought coffee from local farmers at 1500 Tanzanian Shillings per one kilogram (equivalent to 1 USD), while other buyers paid 900 Tanzanian Shillings.

As well as leading Kaderes Peasants Development Ltd. and growing coffee, bananas, beans and maize herself, Aligaesha owns six cows, operates her own irrigation systems, and also supplies quality seedlings to other villagers. Even though she has had little formal agricultural training, Aligaesha has become a kind of researcher in the village, testing out new agricultural techniques for others to follow, and encouraging women to be more involved in agriculture and business.

At Oxfam, we’re excited that the US government is finally recognizing that supporting people like Aligaesha and her fellow farmers at Kaderes Peasants Development Ltd. can be a sound investment of our food aid dollars.

As a former teacher, most important to Aligaesha is that her eight children have all been put through university as a result of her hard work.

We’re still looking over the details, but the first look at President Obama’s proposal to overhaul the international food aid program looks very good. Oxfam has been working this issue for more than a decade and we observe that the changes would:

(1) Cut funding of the primary food aid program (PL 480), which in FY13 was funded at $1.36 billion.

(2) Shift $1.1 billion to a different disaster response budget account under USAID for emergency food assistance. This would allow using more flexible food assistance tools like local purchase of food, or using vouchers instead of food distribution;

(3) Shift $250 million to a development budget account at USAID to support longer-term food assistance programs with food aid resources. This is an addition to the $80 million in funding within this account that is already available for this purposes, bringing total DA funding for non-emergency food aid to $330m;

(4) Create a new highly flexible $75 million emergency contingency fund; and

(5) Shift $25 million to the US Maritime Administration to ensure that US military readiness of the US shipping industry is maintained, since less food aid is likely to get shipped overseas.

A child in Dire Dawa, Ethiopia stands near a wall made of USAID food aid containers in the flood-destroyed area of Bahere Tsege in 2006. Photo: Liz Lucas/Oxfam America

The proposal would end the practice of “monetization” which provides cash to NGOs doing food security programs in developing countries but is highly inefficient and wastes a lot of money.  The proposal would require that 55% of the emergency food aid be procured from the US.  We hope that there is a continuing effort going forward to reduce the requirement that US food aid is tied to domestic sourcing. We recognize that US commodities still have a role to play in addressing hunger, but USAID should not have its hands tied in making the decision about how best to reach those in need.

Already today, two Republican Senators have expressed openness to looking at the proposal and making reforms.  Looks like this could have legs!

USAID Administrator Raj Shah will make a speech on the proposal later today.

Politico yesterday reported a rumor that US food aid programs could see major changes in the next budget. The article frames this move as putting aid “on the chopping block,” but it is not at all clear what is really going on.  Enacting major cuts to food aid programs would be a terrible idea that would cost lives without making a dent in our debt.

But there is another, more hopeful possibility that the administration is about to push for long overdue reforms that would make US aid programs more effective and cost efficient. This could be a very, very good thing.

Let me explain. The US reaches millions of people each year with life-saving aid. From the Horn of Africa to the Sahel to the most recent humanitarian crisis in Syria, US assistance to address hunger and food insecurity is crucial. The US is the most generous donor of food assistance in the world and gets a lot of credit for this.  Cutting aid doesn’t make sense, but why might the Administration seek to fundamentally change this program?

A child in Dire Dawa, Ethiopia stands near a wall made of USAID food aid containers in the flood-destroyed area of Bahere Tsege in 2006. Photo: Liz Lucas/Oxfam America

The reason is that current US food aid programs are excruciatingly inefficient and in some instances counter-productive to helping people build sustainable agricultural livelihoods. Oxfam has been outspoken in its criticism of the way in which the US runs its food aid program. And we’ve offered common sense reforms to make the programs more efficient—reforms that would allow US assistance to reach millions of more people without costing a single extra penny. We applauded Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts of the Senate Agriculture Committee for their leadership and steps to reform the food aid program as they wrote a new Farm Bill last year.  The bill passed the Senate on a broad bipartisan basis, but floundered in the House.

If the Obama Administration puts forward a proposal to pursue these kinds of reforms, it would mark an effort to break the stranglehold of special interests in the US who profit from the current rules, regulations, and red-tape governing food aid programs. It would be a bold and important step.

Real reforms would give aid humanitarian agencies greater flexibility, including the ability to purchase food from the cheapest, most efficient source. This would in turn reduce costs and speed delivery. It would bring our programs into the 21^st century, in line with most other countries. This is precisely what a recent USDA study of local and regional procurement projects demonstrated. For almost every commodity examined, buying from local or regional sources was cheaper and uniformly faster than shipping it from the US. Many aid groups already do this with their own money and through other emergency aid accounts such as the Emergency Food Security Program out of the International Development Account.  But the primary food assistance program remains essentially outdated, lumbering, and wasteful.

Such a change would also clean up the jurisdictional mess created by current configuration of food aid programs, which are authorized in the Farm Bill, funded through the Agriculture Appropriations bill, but implemented by USAID. Not only would reform rationalize the system, but it would help create a more cohesive approach to the current patchwork of programs to deal with global hunger.

Oxfam America campaigned last year saying that Washington should “stop playing with food aid.” Thousands of people supported us in sending a message to their lawmakers to enact this reform.  If the rumor pans out and the Obama Administration is serious about food aid reform, it would seem the message got through.  Good on President Obama!

I doubt members of the Agriculture Committee thought the eleventh-hour Farm Bill extension would be the conclusion of their year-plus efforts to negotiate a new and improved five-year Farm Bill.

The last-minute inclusion of a one-year extension of the commodity groups’ favorite farm subsidies and rural programs were tucked into the final fiscal cliff bill this week. This means that the debate about the future of US food and farm policy and efforts for real reform will have to continue in 2013.

The fiscal cliff bill does the bare minimum of providing continuing authority for life-saving food aid programs, avoiding most of what could be termed the “food aid cliff”.  The US provides roughly half of all food aid globally. If food aid programs had not been re-authorized, a true cliff would have emerged for tens of millions of people displaced by conflict or whose crops are decimated by floods or rain, and who depend on food aid from the US.

Although the extension of the food aid programs is obviously a relief, it’s a program in desperate need of improvement. Unfortunately the extension was not applied to reauthorization of one of the most promising and successful programs of the 2008 Farm Bill, the USDA Local and Regional Procurement Pilot Program (LRP). LRP ensures the most bang for the food aid buck, because it allows the US Government to purchase food aid from the most affordable and efficient sellers. The LRP pilot has proven to be a highly-effective and efficient way to spend scarce aid dollars to help save lives and build self-sufficiency for vulnerable communities.  As has been well documented, LPR can save time and money, allowing crucial aid to reach more people in need of food assistance. It also invests in communities so they can feed themselves, instead of becoming dependent on food aid in the future.

It is the epitome of irony that a deal designed to tackle some of the looming challenges of government spending allows LRP to lapse, thereby doubling down on the more expensive, inefficient, and outdated models of food aid.  It is a wasted opportunity for Congress, not to mention a waste of money for taxpayers. LPR is the kind of program you would prioritize if your aim was really to make federal spending more efficient and effective.

But that’s not what Congress chose to do, a depressing start to the new year. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition issued a press release referring to the Farm Bill extension as “anti-reform” and “a disaster for farmers and the America people.”

Congress must extend authority for LRP, and adopt a host of other reforms to US food aid programs when it reauthorizes the Farm Bill in 2013. The Senate version of the Farm Bill, after much work and compromise, included good provisions on food aid reform that must be the starting point for continued discussions.

We may not have totally fallen off the food aid cliff, but we still have a mountain to climb.

Rice distributed and sold in Liberia. Photo: Ruby Wright/Oxfam International

With Farm Bill negotiations simmering on the back burner and an all-consuming Congressional focus on dealing with the fiscal cliff, the Alliance for Global Food Security, a group of Private Voluntary Organizations who have opposed common sense reforms to food aid programs, took the opportunity to launch a new study on the use of food aid monetization—essentially the sale of agricultural commodities in developing countries—to generate revenues for use in development programs. The Value of Food Aid Monetization: benefits, Risks and Best Practices sets out to provide additional information and evidence on one of the thornier issues in food aid programs authorized through the Farm Bill.

The problem: As the report rightly notes, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has, on more than one occasion criticized the practice of monetization as a wasteful and inefficient use of US assistance. In their most recent accounting, the GAO found that over a recent three year period, monetization resulted in a loss of $219 million. The reason? It’s difficult to recoup the full cost of purchase, shipment, and delivery of food aid in competitive transactions in developing countries. Cost recovery for monetization activities for USAID administered programs averaged 76 percent. Activities managed by USDA fared slightly worse.

Then there is the question of market impact. Concerns have long been raised (including in the GAO report) that monetized food aid can compete with locally produced goods (or more relevantly, goods produced by smallholder farmers in the same market/country), disrupting lives and livelihoods.

How the Alliance responds: The study produced by the Alliance admits that on a pure cost recovery basis, monetization programs score poorly. But fixating on how much money is lost in monetization only tells part of the story and ignores all the good that can come from selling food aid. To elaborate this point, the study looks at five monetization activities in Gambia, Guatemala, Uganda, Liberia and Mozambique.

So, what exactly does the report tell us?

• In the cases under review, monetization did not disrupt domestic production or marketing. A positive finding, though I suspect there would have been resistance to publishing cases in which monetization did disrupt markets;

• Even if not explicit, it’s pretty clear that monetization serves as an export promotion program and an export subsidy to US producers. Take this language from the Liberia case study in which rice is the monetized commodity: “The six importers [which dominate rice imports] would not import as much [US] parboiled rice commercially because it would be cost-prohibitive, which is overcome by selling in smaller lots and allowing incremental payments.” Is this why we have food aid programs, to promote US agriculture products abroad?

• Program results achieved from the monetization process (as opposed to the ones achieved with the resulting funds generated through monetization) demonstrate benefits in terms of improving food markets, though not necessarily agriculture markets. For instance, one of the key benefits of wheat sales in Uganda has been the contribution to a stronger milling sector. But no data is presented to demonstrate that the improved capacity of millers has resulted in stronger linkages with farmers, particularly smallholder farmers who are the subject of much focus in Feed the Future and other development programs.

And what does the report not tell us?

West Point Market in Monrovia, Liberia.Photo: Aubrey Wade/Oxfam GB

Whether the positive outcomes associated with the monetization program could be achieved through other means. The crux of the issue is not whether monetization proceeds fund good programs that benefit producers or consumers. It is whether monetization is really the only or the optimal means of achieving positive results. For example, several of the case studies note instances of increased market participation by small vendors because of favorable credit or financing provisions accompanying monetization schemes. But these outcomes could also be achieved through strengthening commercial financial services and other assistance provided directly to traders.

And finally, even if one agrees that this study presents compelling evidence that the practice of monetization should continue to be part of US food aid programs, it does not mean having to accept the status quo. If organizations continue to insist on monetization—and if by law a minimum amount of food aid must continue to be sold on markets—we need smart policies and strong guidance and indicators regarding outcomes and acceptable levels of loss in the program.  Provisions in the Senate-passed Farm Bill take a step in this direction by directing agencies practicing monetization to achieve at least 70 percent cost recovery (though USAID and USDA would have discretion to authorize monetization even in instances where this could not be achieved). Of the cases reviewed in this study, this level is met or exceeded in all but one instance. The Senate provisions would not have precluded any of the positive outcomes these activities appear to have achieved.

From the outside, losing 24 percent of aid resources on average in the process of monetization seems like a terrible waste of scarce resources. But what’s worse is that some aid groups that regularly practice monetization seem to be ok with this cost of doing business and are opposed to the Senate reforms. Shame on them. We should strive to do better.

This blog post by GROW campaign manager Vicky Rateau is cross posted from Good.

Married young and a mother at 17, Etta Brahim Senussi tries to enjoy the simple pleasures her children bring to her life in parched Andrabad in northern Chad—even as trouble looms. “When my kids are having fun, when they’re not hungry, when they jump left, right, and center, that’s the most pleasure I get,” she said.

But with rain in short supply, Etta worries for the future. Across the Sahel region of West Africa, where Etta lives, 18 million people are at risk of hunger. Low rainfall and water levels, poor harvests, lack of pasture, and high food prices are all contributing to a food crisis. This phenomenon is far from new. In fact, this particular crisis is more challenging because people in Etta’s community are still recovering from the last food crisis, which hit just two years ago and affected 10 million people across the region.

Sometimes it’s hard to know what the word crisis even means. In a “normal” year in the Sahel about 300,000 children—the population of Pittsburgh—die as a result of malnutrition. Lack of investment in small farmers in the region, unfair trade policies, political instability, and an increasingly unpredictable climate leave communities highly vulnerable to even minor weather disruptions. This crisis is a symptom of the broader challenges facing our global food system.

Many of these challenges stem from the $300 billion behemoth U.S. Farm Bill written by Congress every five years. The Farm Bill shapes our food system and affects practically everything grown and eaten here in the United States, but it also has global ramifications. Farm Bill policies can help put food on Etta’s plate or leave her family hungry.

In this year’s Farm Bill there is a crucial opportunity to reform how the United States handles international food aid programs. Simple reforms would enable aid agencies to reach millions more people when crises like the one emerging in the Sahel occur and they would not cost taxpayers a dime. In fact, reform could save taxpayers up to $500 million per year.

Wasteful regulations, written into law to protect special interests, prevent food aid from being purchased locally and regionally, even when it is a more affordable and effective way to save lives. Purchasing food aid this way can meet immediate needs while helping to build long-term sustainable local food systems in communities like Etta’s so they will not need aid in the future. Simple reforms to remove the restrictions could help reach up to 17 million more people with life-saving aid, at no additional cost. Frankly, it’s a no-brainer.

For Etta and the nearly one billion people who go hungry around the world, the food system—manipulated by big agribusiness and special interests—simply doesn’t function. As with any policy, big moneyed backers are fighting to maintain their interests in the Farm Bill. The voices of people like Etta who feel the brunt of our policies, but have little recourse to change them, are barely heard.

Changing food aid rules will not fix our Farm Bill overnight. But achieving the big, structural changes our food system desperately needs will require active and engaged citizens who are willing to stand up for what’s right. Reforming food aid is a good place to start.

Oxfam is aiming to help 1.2 million people across seven countries with programs that include cash transfers and cash-for-work initiatives, veterinary care for the livestock on which many families depend, and access to clean water and sanitation. We are also campaigning to change the root causes of this crisis. Find out how you can support our efforts.

Farmer Kassa Danfakha stands in his field during the dry season; Bembou village, south-eastern Senegal. Credit: Brett Eloff/ Oxfam America

I blogged two weeks ago about the ongoing Sahel food aid crisis and my colleague Anna Kramer has provided a great infographic outlining the key causes and facts. Today, at a meeting being organized by the European Commission, governments, UN agencies, and INGOs (including Oxfam) are meeting in Brussels to discuss the crisis and chart a path forward.

Much of the focus of the meeting will undoubtedly be on meeting immediate emergency needs and filling the appalling funding gap that remains between what governments have identified as needed in the region and what aid has so far been committed. Of the 1.5 billion requested so far, only $642 million has been committed by donors. The US has provided $308 million. But, with such a large gap, it is clear that all donors—the US included—must give more. All of this of course assumes that this additional assistance can be used in creative ways to get assistance to people in need on time, which is now. Perhaps this a manageable task in some communities, but clearly harder in other places such as northern Mali.

Efforts to ensure a successful harvest are also badly in need of funding at the moment. Farmers and pastoralists are again looking forward to the rainy season which is expected to begin in the days and weeks ahead. The onset of the rains usually signals hard work as farmers go to the fields to prepare and plant their crops, but only if they have seeds.

In Senegal, seeds for key crops such as groundnuts appear to be in scarce supply. After the poor crop last year, farmers had few seeds to save. And what seeds they have managed to keep have become a tempting source of nutrition as other food has run out. Without immediate assistance to meet emergency needs and enable farmers to plant and pastoralists to maintain their herds, the cycle of hunger will continue. This is the discussion in Dakar and Niamey, and other capital cities in the region where hunger has taken hold. It will also be on the agenda for the Consultation.

Recovery activities—helping to rebuild assets that have been depleted during a crisis period—such as emergency input distribution are embedded in drought disaster response. The Consultation is also slated to tackle issue such as this in terms of the emergent (and in vogue) concept of resilience building. In a conversation eerily similar to one that took place earlier this year with regard to the Horn of Africa crisis (and where the US launched a multi-stakeholder partnership), the EU is slated to announce a partnership on resilience for the West Africa region.

However it is defined (see here for one example)—whether to signal the need to bridge the gap donors often face between humanitarian aid and long-term development programs; focus attention on government-level early warning systems, preparedness, and response; or to support community-based efforts to assess, prepare, respond to and recover from shocks—the concept of resilience may be a useful one to organize around. (For an interesting Q&A covering some of these issues, see this transcript from a recent USAID-sponsored event.) But governments and other stakeholders need to clearly define a shared framework for understanding and analysis of how resiliency will be operationalized at the community level and how it layers with other development effort to sustainably improve food security and reduce vulnerability over time. The danger is that resilience becomes a fad that garners attention in the short term without attracting the resources needed to bring about transformative and lasting results.

Representatives meeting at the European Commission High Level Meeting on the Sahel must address both of these issues. It’s a tall order, admittedly. But one that can’t be ignored.

Oxfam is aiming to help 1.2 million people across seven countries with programs that include cash transfers and cash-for-work initiatives, veterinary care for the livestock on which many families depend, and access to clean water and sanitation. We are also campaigning to change the root causes of this crisis. Find out how you can support our efforts.

Sometimes a quote says more, much more, than the person saying it intended. Today an article in POLITICO looks into how potential reforms to international food aid programs in the US farm bill could impact the shipping industry.

In defending the wasteful and inefficient practice of mandating that virtually all US food aid is grown by preferred growers and then shipped by preferred shippers from the US to countries-in-need, Clint Eisenhauer, vice president for governmental relations for Maersk, a Danish-based shipping company, said, “but if you could grow the grain in Somalia, people wouldn’t be starving.”

Well, yes. Exactly. Let’s leave aside for a second the irony of an executive of a Danish shipping company lecturing anyone on why Congress should double down on regulations supposedly set up to promote American interests. The real issue is that Eisenhauer’s quote displays a fundamental misunderstanding of why people end up struggling to find enough food in the first place. In many food emergencies, food availability is not the challenge. The challenge is that people are too poor to afford to buy it, or they are displaced by conflict or crises. There is ample food available, often very close to where the hungry people are, but because of economic, political or other shocks, many people just cannot access or afford enough of it to support their families.

But more important than those basic facts is that even in many of the countries that most often require emergency assistance, countries like Sudan, Niger, Ethiopia, and yes Somalia, there is vast, untapped potential to grow food.  Lots and lots of food that could sustainably support the livelihoods of millions of people.  Suggesting that it is impossible to grow food in these countries is not just offensive, it’s factually wrong. Transforming how aid is delivered so that more can be invested in building self-sufficiency and resilience is exactly what we should be doing with our scarce foreign aid dollars.