This is a rush transcript from "Your World," January 12, 2011. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST OF “YOUR WORLD”: Washington is honoring Congresswoman Giffords today, but business isn’t at a standstill completely. Reports today that some Republicans want that earmark ban to be only a temporary ban.

Republican Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia says some earmarks are important and a permanent ban wouldn’t be a good idea.  I thought, Congressman, voters said otherwise last November. You disagree?

REP. FRANK WOLF (R), VIRGINIA: Neil, you really have your facts wrong.

I was the author of the Iraq Study Group that helped bring about an end to the Iraq war and changed the policies. I set up a group outside, if you recall the Baker-Hamilton commission that looked at the Iraq war, made the recommendation for the surge that helped us to lead where we are now.

We’re talking about policy issues. We are also concerned that the administration is not doing a very good job with regard to human rights and religious freedom.

CAVUTO: What does this have to do with earmarks?

(CROSSTALK)

WOLF: Let me just -- you have a number -- because it’s a policy.

Right now, we wanted to set up a group outside, like President Reagan did, iron sharpens iron, to look at these issues. Now, if I want to do a policy on gangs, am I going to ask Eric Holder to look at the gang policy?  We are flooded with gangs, gangs coming from Mexico.

We want to set up a group, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, to look at the gang violence both in Mexico and the impact it’s having on the country. Lastly, we want to set up a team B, a group outside of government, to look at the whole Guantanamo Bay policy, to look at this whole issue.

Yesterday, you saw the secretary say they wanted to send people back to Yemen. Al-Awlaki is in Yemen.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Congressman, I’m sorry. We don’t have a lot of time, but what does this have to do with earmarks?

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Do you feel then that these are special exceptions that you should control? Is that what you’re saying?

(CROSSTALK)

WOLF: Neil, I’m saying that, if you want to set up -- when we were trying to change the policy on the Iraq war, we set up the Baker-Hamilton commission that was outside of the government.

So, for a policy issue on whether or not -- we are trying to now -- I’m going to offer an amendment to have the -- set up a group to look at the Afghanistan-Pakistan war. Pakistan is out of control. Afghanistan may not be going well.

(CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: I know. I know. All these are very good things.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But, Congressman, what does this have to do with earmarks?  What does it have to do? Just tell me. That’s all I want do know.

WOLF: Neil, I can see you really don’t understand.

If you specify -- if I specified that the U.S. Institute for Peace or the Baker-Hamilton commission looks at the Afghanistan-Pakistan war, as we need someone to look at, if you read the book "Obama’s War," I don’t have confidence that this administration is looking at it in an appropriate way.

If you designate the name, you therefore -- that’s an earmark. So what we are talking about is a policy issue. And to say that the Afghanistan-Pakistan war should be looked at, the administration, they’re already looking at it. I don’t happen to agree with what they’re doing.

(CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: Congressman, then allow your idiotic questioner, then, to simplify it.

Then, if these issues and all that you mentioned might be very, very important. Most of them are.

WOLF: nbsp; They are.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Listen.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Then, then, then put those individual ones up for a vote, and do not tie them on to an earmark.

WOLF: Well, I agree.

(CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: Congressman, help me. Please, I beg you.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Are you for or against earmarks? Are you for or against earmarks, yes or no?