Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Members should know that Mr. Shays has been to Iraq 17 times and has been outside the umbrella of the military four times, and probably understands this issue in the Congress probably better than anybody else.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from Miami, Ms. Ileana Ros- Lehtinen.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, just in closing, the gentlewoman has been very good, and I appreciate the work of Mrs. Lowey on a lot of the issues. As Mr. Shays said, there are a lot of good things in the bill. This, in closing, deals with the whole issue of demining, human rights training, criminal justice, rule of law and human rights. None of these things really ought to be controversial for anybody, whatever their position. Also they fit into the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. I think to offer an opportunity to heal and to build the private sector, the civilian sector in Iraq on these issues of human rights training is important, so when the United States is out, there will be respect for human rights, there will be criminal justice, there will be rule of law. Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe they would be. The reason we did this, I will tell my friend from Illinois, is when the $458 million was cut, we asked the administration to come up and tell us what they really needed, because we said this is a very difficult issue. The gentlewoman put a lot of programs with good money in. What do you honestly need? So everything would be in compliance with the benchmarks. But it would also give them the initial funding. They said, we actually need this $158 million. But they would be, to answer your question, in compliance.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is fiscal year 2008, and these would be all issues that I think everybody on both sides, Republican, Democrat, independent, moderate, conservative, would be for. If you go out on the street and say do you favor funding in the 2008 bill for demining, I think you would get a 90-10 yes. If you said do you favor funding for human rights training or whatever the case may be, people would say yes. Do you favor funding with regard to the human rights rule of law, they would say yes. This is what the administration and the State Department, not so much the administration, the State Department really felt they would need. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairwoman for accepting the amendment. I appreciate it very much. I thank Mr. Shays for offering it. I think this is really the way the country is going to go. There may be a vote here. Mr. Udall and other Members, along with Mr. Shays and Mr. McCaul, have a bill in to make the Iraq study the policy for the Nation. I want to thank the gentlewoman for accepting it and thank Mr. Shays.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Everyone has frustrations. I think the U.N. could do certainly a lot more on Darfur and many of the other things. They stood by and frankly didn't do very much in Rwanda, either. But what this amendment would do, I think, is people have to look at it. This would actually cut NATO fees, and NATO is sort of the backbone of what we're doing in Afghanistan and many other places, but particularly $41 million out of this fund goes to NATO. Also, on the World Health Organization with regard to avian flu and things like that, this is not the time to do that. Also, there is another issue that I have personally made a cause, of funding the war crime tribunals to bring people to justice. This would cut the war crimes tribunal in Rwanda where over 800,000 people have died between the Hutus and the Tutsis and that whole issue. Also the former Yugoslavia where after the genocide that took place, Milosevic was brought to the court. So for those reasons, I understand what the gentlelady is trying to do. But I think this would be the wrong place to kind of do it, from NATO and IAEA and the World Health Organization and the war crimes tribunal. Lastly, this is at the request of President Bush, of the Bush administration. This is what the Bush administration, President Bush, has requested. For those reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. On behalf of Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, she wanted to thank you very much for the clarification and she appreciates it very much.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shays has made a good case, and the Chair has made a good case for this. Without mentioning the groups, so we don't call any attention to them, we know the good work that they are doing. Mr. Shays lived with one of the groups for a period of time. You saw the schools they were building. So I am just concerned we are getting wrapped up into process that since nothing is in, we are not going to put things in. This is something that would actually work and have success in Iraq from the civilian side. It would be a great boost to have this in. So I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo is interested in this and a lot of others, and I thank the Chair for accepting the Kirk amendment in the full committee. I looked for you yesterday. What I wanted to ask you to do was to offer an amendment on the floor, and I know the gentlewoman would have accepted it, of another $100,000, or $1 million, for the Chaldean Christians, and get a roll call vote on it; because colloquies are colloquies, but a roll call vote is a roll call vote. AID has failed to address this issue. We have asked them a number of times. They tell us that we can't be targeting with regard to certain ethnic groups, and it has never been a satisfactory answer. So it is too late now, but it would have been a good thing to do. In fact, this Congress and this government, we have abandoned the Christians in the Middle East. We have pretty much walked away and the Christian community in the Middle East is declining. So you are on to something, and hopefully you can find a way in another bill or in the supplemental perhaps to offer to work with the gentlewoman to have an amendment, and then you offer an added $100,000 or $1 million or whatever you think is appropriate, and then ask for a roll call vote so the entire Congress is on record, because you are right on target. I want to thank you, and we will work with you and help you in any way possible. But a roll call vote of 435-0 would send a message to the AID people that they would have to face and focus on.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. I think that comment really sends a message. Obviously AID is watching this debate right now, and for the Chair of the committee to say that, they have actually gotten the message. So I thank the Chair.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pitts amendment. First of all there is the flexibility; there is ability to waive. I hope Mr. Pitts will cover that. Let me read you what Ambassador Mark Dybul said. He said recent data from Kenya, Zimbabwe and urban Haiti show decline in HIV prevalence. A new study has concluded that these reductions and prevalence do not simply represent the natural course of these nations' epidemics, but can only be explained by changes in sexual behavior. This demonstrates the power of behavior changes to save lives and the importance of support for effective behavior change intervention. If people from my old neighborhood back in southwest Philadelphia heard this debate that the Congress was debating ``faithful'' in this, is it a good idea or a bad idea, they would say, what is going on? As Mr. Pitts said, I would argue too that he is right. I think Biblical faithfulness is a Biblical principle. Faithfulness is a very good principle. Does anyone disagree? Now we are debating abstinence? We are saving lives. So there is flexibility. So there is a fake argument here. There is the ability to waive; and what we are doing here, we could talk about different things, they are underlying agendas. We are talking about basically are we going to save lives. Are we going to save lives. I will stipulate that Mark Dybul has forgotten more about this than this Congress knows. Because of that, I will urge an ``aye'' vote for the Pitts amendment to save lives. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my friend from Pennsylvania.

Mr. WOLF. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOLF. Would the gentleman be saying Archbishop Desmond Tutu would be basically supporting your amendment?

Mr. WOLF. Nobel Prize winner Bishop Tutu from South Africa supports the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. I mean, is there a greater expert, from both moral and understanding than that? Did the gentleman say there have been waivers granted?

Mr. WOLF. Every single country. I think the gentleman has made the case. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman.