I deeply respect the authors of this amendment and respect their effort to try to balance competing concerns, but I respectfully believe that they've struck the wrong balance. One concern that I have here is that money is fungible and food is not. The possibility of corruption occurring--not because of the good- faith NGOs, but because of some of the forces at work in the countries we're talking about--is a problem. At the same time, I believe the effect of this amendment would be to undercut our merchant marine activities, our agricultural exporters, and ultimately undercut support within this country for a robust program of food aid to the rest of the world. The present structure of the program is inclusive; it builds support. I respectfully think this amendment would detract from that support. For that reason, I would urge a ``no'' vote.
Share
More from Rob Andrews
We come here as stewards of a very sacred trust--to look after the people that are the backbone of this country. We are having this debate this afternoon because we have all heard from men and women across this country who are very upset…
I do, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized to speak to the point of order.
On that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. This is a…
If the bills that are on the floor today pass unanimously--which they won't--here is what happens next. They go to the Senate, the Senate maybe takes them up, maybe doesn't take them up, passes them, maybe doesn't pass them, and this whole…





