Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I object, because it goes back to what we were faced with before. I commend the gentlewoman for trying to do what she wants to do. Point of Order

Mr. WOLF. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI imposing additional duties.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio for bringing this amendment and for bringing the issue to the floor. There will be, I believe, 40 million orphans in the year 2015 in Africa, and hopefully by putting pressure and raising these issues, I know Secretary Powell is very, very concerned. One of the first meetings I had when I got back is we met with Secretary Powell. We raised the issue of Sudan and AIDS. I will send the gentleman my report. So I think it is good and healthy that it is out so people are forced to address it. point of order

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order on the amendment, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time under my point of order, I would like to comment before the Chair rules, if I may. This is not a parliamentary maneuver. The gentlewoman is not the only person who is interested in these issues. I was in the Congo in January. We were in Rwanda and Burundi and up in the Sudan. The gentlewoman is not the only person interested in this. The fact that we asked for a point of order does not mean it is a parliamentary maneuver. Also, if the gentlewoman takes the time to go to page 100, we asked for the Africa policy. The committee is concerned about their lack of sufficient attention to foreign policy issues regarding Africa and supports the Department's efforts to improve the effectiveness, and we go on and on. We also say this amendment goes far beyond what is necessary. In February, the Bush administration, and I want to put this on the record, because it sounds like the gentlewoman from California is the only one that cares about this, the Bush administration affirmed that it would not object to developing countries using the proficiencies of WTO to improve access to HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals. In June, the administration decided to terminate its WTO patent dispute with Brazil, in part because some people believe that this dispute interferes with Brazil's effective AIDS program. The FDA office is committed to ensuring that the WTO members are able to use the flexibility built into the WTO to address the emergency and health care needs. It goes beyond that. So it is not a maneuver. It is just a point of order, and it is subject to a decision.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because the amendment proposes to change the existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of Rule XXI.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition; and I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take long. The U.N. is not in Macedonia; it is NATO in Macedonia. Quite frankly, if NATO had not been involved in Kosovo and Macedonia, Eastern Europe and the Balkans would have been inflamed. We know where World War II started and other wars which started there. So, therefore, I think that has been in the best interests, by keeping peace, if you will. Besides that, we could continue to debate, but in the interest of time, I would just say that the Bush Administration would be strongly opposed to this, as is Secretary Powell and the State Department. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am just going to end, I will not take the whole time, but there is so much going on in my mind. I kind of want to just say, America is a different country. We value the fundamental values that were in the Declaration of Independence: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal.'' Those words are known around the world. The fact that America has been involved, when Ronald Reagan gave the speech in Orlando, where he called the Soviet Union the Evil Empire, it was one of the finest days, because he stood up for our fundamental values. And because of Ronald Reagan and the Pope and other people who spoke out for our values, we saw the Berlin Wall fall. We cannot remove ourselves. I believe that God has blessed this country, a blessing on this country, for the goodness of what we have done; for the fact that we are trying to feed the poor and the hungry and the naked. In Matthew 25, Jesus talks about going in and feeding the poor and the hungry and the naked. And America is always there. It is mandate that Jesus talks about in the Bible. So for us to just pull out and say, the hunger, the starvation, the HIV, the sickness, the sleeping sickness in Sudan, we are not going to be involved in, I think would be a mistake. I think this is a bad amendment. I understand what the gentleman says, and I know the U.N. has some serious problems. I have been very, very critical the U.N., and we will continue to watch over them, but we cannot adopt this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I was in Kosovo and in Albania during this case; and I will tell you, Mladic is a war criminal, and Karadzic, he is a war criminal, and Milosevic is a war criminal. So, without this, there would be no way to deal with it. Secondly, I have been in Sudan and Southern Sudan four times, the last time in January of this year. Whether you like it or not, the World Food Program is feeding the people of Sudan. As many people know, there have been 2.2 million Christians who have been killed in Sudan by the Khartoum Government, and if the World Food Program was not sending food in there, and Andrew Natsios and Roger Winter from the State Department are in Sudan as we now speak, this would just devastate that whole operation. I understand what the gentleman said with regard to the vote. We have language on page 112 of the report that says, ``The committee is deeply concerned by the secret ballot of the U.N. Member nations to keep the United States off the U.N. Human Rights Commission. The exit of the United States and the election at the same time of the government of Sudan,'' the barbaric government of Sudan, which is sponsoring state- sponsored terrorism, slavery and has been responsible for the death of 2.2 million people, ``effectively cancels the ability of the United Nations to speak out or act with credibility on this issue.'' We have been very, very forthright with regard to that. But the U.N. has been responsible for calls with regard to getting its financial house in order. In the Book of Luke, in the New Testament, it says to whom much is given, much is required. The King James version says ``required.'' For us not to be helping the starving people of Sudan through the U.N., the World Food Program, I think it would not be good for this country. This country has been blessed. We have been blessed because the American people are good and decent and honest and caring; and for us not to be participating to help to feed those in the South, particularly those who are Christian and Animists, who are being persecuted by the Khartoum Government, frankly would just have us walking away. So I think this is a bad, bad amendment. I understand what the gentleman is trying to get to. It is a bad, bad amendment; and I urge a no vote by Members on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer). (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Kerns).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). After the gentleman from Virginia raised concerns last week at the committee level about the FBI system for gun purchase background check information, I set up a meeting for him and the FBI to discuss the issue. The FBI acting director, a career civil servant, not a political appointee, a career civil servant and a career FBI employee who works with the NICS program from the FBI call center in West Virginia travelled to answer questions. In fact, we specifically had the people that work on this program drive in from West Virginia to sit down and we said, give us all of the answers. I believe that all the answers were met and the concerns were put to rest. I want my colleagues to know that the Office of the Attorney General was not at the meeting. No political appointees were at the meeting. This was a meeting, as I promised, to look at the NICS system and hear from the professionals about its ability to ensure quality control within a 24-hour period for background checks. I understand that the career staffer who has extensive experience with the system indicated that the FBI can perform the quality control within 24 hours. That is a fact. In fact, they say it is better to do the quality assurance immediately rather than wait a few days or weeks or up to 90 days because if the system is not working right, then you want to know immediately as the sale of the gun is approved. It is important to note that the records that are kept now for 90 days are on approved gun sales. However, what the NICS system does not tell us is if the gun was sold. This information resides with the gun dealer, not the FBI. The FBI keeps records indefinitely on people who were denied the ability to buy the gun because of a felony record, mental deficiencies or spousal abuse. We want to strike the right balance between protecting the privacy of people and ensuring that law enforcement has adequate time to review and audit the information collected to make sure the system is working properly. The Moran amendment is unnecessary. It is not needed, it is clear, after talking and listening to the career professionals at the FBI. Also, the amendment is highly controversial and not an issue that, quite frankly, we should be dealing with on the appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members on all sides to defeat this unneeded amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.