I'm a lawyer too, by training, and I assure you the questions I asked were not questions in the realm of speculation on a remotely theoretical case. I pushed hard with counsel to understand if this was a real risk. And I must say, based on a textual interpretation of the law as it is currently written, it strikes me as very reasonable to believe that if in an act you define development assistance in a specific way that includes a whole range of activities, and you then say of that box you've just defined that you are only allowed to provide that assistance if it contributes to poverty reduction--which is the effect of clause 4--by definition you have excluded part of the activities that were in that broad definition of what you can no longer fund. I would hope that there would be a way that could be avoided without undermining the intent of the committee.
On November 28th, 2006. See this statement in context.