Eliot Engel

Sometimes it seems that we lose sight of why we have a food aid program in the first place. It isn't to subsidize growers, shippers, or NGOs. It is to prevent men, women, and children in the developing world from starving to death.

This plan has garnered bipartisan support on Capitol Hill and from groups as disparate at the Heritage Foundation and Oxfam.

I commend the President, I commend the administration for its food aid reform proposal.

Monetization is also exceedingly wasteful. According to the GAO, at least 25 cents of every dollar is lost during this process.

We can save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars by purchasing food aid closer to the destination countries.

Hunger pangs shouldn't be subject to shipping schedules.

Since 1954, the Food for Peace Program has fed more than 1 billion people around the world and saved countless lives.

I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act…

I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act…

I am intrigued by the part of your written testimony which lays out a proposed risk-based framework for a new legislative approach to compounding to ensure patient safety and health.

I want to first ask a New York question.

I urge a yes vote for this amendment, and I yield back.

We need both men and women's voices to be heard to alter the actions of a very, very cruel, extreme Iranian regime.

I think we have more bipartisanship on this committee than virtually any other committee.

We continue moving ahead with a bill that now has over 330 co-sponsors.

It is critical that the administration aggressively impose all Iran sanctions.

I think our Constitution has served us well. I don't think there is an amendment necessary in this area.

I support the government's efforts to read the public safety exception as broadly as they can.

It is possible to imagine a situation in which it would be safe for our country to, you know, release some of the folks at Guantanamo Bay.

I think the 'global war on terror' is a phrase which has had uses; it's had detriments.

I think we've identified here a real issue in which there are costs to a proposal that requires Mr. Tsarnaev or others...

I just hope that he would understand that I think there is a very big chance now with Hugo Chavez being gone that the United States and Bolivia could perhaps reach out again in cooperation.

I hope he does for Bolivia's sake. I hope he does for his sake and his leadership's sake.

It is my feeling that that could be done in a very genuine way.

Shouldn't it be indicated to him... that his release would allow for a rapprochement?