Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. This I think would put them roughly at $1.4 million. It was at roughly $1.3 million in 1994 when the Democrats were in. That is not much of an increase in the whip operation. Furthermore, the Democrats are getting more money for the leader's office than the Republicans.

Mr. SOUDER. It is because they took a 35 percent cut earlier.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, a couple of different points that I want to make here. One is that this is a very difficult process. We have a budget agreement that the President says he supports, that all of us in Congress say we support, that calls for very difficult appropriations levels, and quite bluntly, none of us are really happy with it. We want to keep the budget caps. We are trying to stay with the budget agreement. We all go out home and say we want to save all this money for social security. But when it comes to each bill, it is always, well, we really need this, we really need that. We have been trying to save a little bit of money in each one because a number of us strongly felt that while everybody talks about the need to stay within the budget agreement, the fact is that the money we had on the table for Labor-HHS, for Interior and Veterans, was not sufficient, and that every side was kind of doing a wink-wink and saying, well, we are trying to try to stay within the caps and within the budget agreement, knowing we were not working towards that. Every dollar we save in this appropriations bill, the agriculture appropriations bill, is going to be able to be used for those programs that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and others have said they are concerned about and will help us preserve social security. That is the real trade-off. Yes, it will be difficult for Members' offices to live under a freeze, which is in effect a reduction. But we also gave each Member of Congress flexibility to move their funds around, and most Members do not even spend their full account. Furthermore, this is another round, in my opinion, of ``pick on the majority whip.'' The plain truth of the matter is that the majority and minority are both getting the same amount of money in this. We reduced, in this agreement, the amendment that will be offered, the money going to leadership; not by a lot, but by some. This amendment does not really please anybody, but at least it moves the ball forward and reduces some funds overall. The minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) gets the same amount as the majority whip. He can either give it to the minority whip or do it elsewhere. The fact is that early on, for many different reasons, in the majority side the whip's office was disproportionately cut in its budget. That is why the majority is choosing to put the money in the whip's office. The minority has the same amount of funds. What is good for one side is good for the other. We have also reduced the committee spending. We need to lead by example. Every dollar we can save in the operations that support Congress, in our own operations, in all of the many organizations here we can put into educating our children, into the health concerns raised by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), in the difference diseases. We can put it into our national defense. That is one of the problems here. We have just seen all of our secrets in our military, offensive and defensive, potentially be at risk to China. At the same time, unless we spend more money in defense, we are completely vulnerable. If we spend more money there, it squeezes elsewhere. I believe this amount of sacrifice is minimal on our parts, and it is courageous, because normally Congress does not allow any amendment on the leg branch. I think there should be more, but normally we do not allow any. Tonight we are taking a very important step that no other Congress has done.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. He would presumably have to overturn this bill.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to clarify the amendment, if I may. It only affects fiscal year 2000 funding. It has 4 months for us to withdraw. It does not have any immediate impact.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, years ago when George McGovern ran for president, our current President and National Security Adviser worked in his campaign. Sandy Berger supposedly even coined the phrase ``come home America.'' Our boys of the Vietnam era have now grown up. It has gone from come home America to go everywhere America, to stay everywhere America. We do have the best military in the world. Nobody is disputing that. We are proud of them. But they can only do so much with poorly conceived political strategies. This is certainly no victory. After 11 weeks of bombing, we have less world stability than when we started. After 11 weeks of bombing, we have a settlement that we probably could have achieved at the beginning. If this is a victory, what would a defeat look like? We are not snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, we are trying to snatch future victories from the jaws of this defeat. Let me look at the specifics here. We probably have destabilized Montenegro, although hopefully we can get the pro-western government stabilized. We certainly have put Macedonia at risk, which was a country where all the factions had pulled together, watched their trade get devastated, and now potentially have changed the mix and the politics of Macedonia. We have set a precedent on autonomous semi-independent republics, and it is not clear whether Kosovo can actually stay under Serbian control. What does this mean for Palestine? What does this mean for the Kurds? Have we taken a foreign policy change and had a potential impact around the world? What about internal interventions? What does this mean for Chechnya, what does this mean if there are Tiananmen Squares? Are we going to intervene in other countries, with terrible tragedies and the genocide in those countries. We do not have a clear policy of how and when we are going to intervene. Furthermore, has this advanced the stability with Russia, has this advanced the stability with China, where we clearly have national interests and world peace interests. I would argue no. Furthermore, we have disproportionately pinned down our forces in an area of the world where we do not have clear national interests, and where, after 700 or 1,500 or 2,000 years of fighting, we are unlikely at the second we pull out not to see reoccurrences. As long as Pristina is conceived as the Jerusalem of the Serbian people, they are not likely, whether it takes 20 years or 50 years or 200 years, to change that attitude. Furthermore, why did I say that about the peace settlement? Milosevic remains in power. He keeps his military. Furthermore, we now disarm his enemies, the KLA. We have Russian troops, his friends, as part of the thing. I am not arguing against these points. I am saying this is something that he probably would have taken in the beginning. Furthermore, it is under UN at this point, under UN control, where China has a veto in the Security Council. We do not even know what the Russian government is going to be like after the next elections, and we probably are going to be there a lot more than 3 months. So you look at this and say, why is this peace settlement a defeat for Milosevic? He has moved the Kosovars out. He does not have enough Serbians to occupy that whole territory. We are looking at 100,000-some versus 1 million people. He wanted his enemies disarmed, and we are going to do that. I do not think this in any way can be called a victory.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg). (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SOUDER. Absolutely.

Mr. SOUDER. My understanding of the bill, my amendment to the bill, would eliminate the invitation that both the chairman and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) have for a supplemental, but it would not prohibit the President from coming with the supplemental. It prohibits any funds that we currently have for fiscal year 2000.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of our troops and the fundamental national security interests of this country. This bill is, in fact, about our national defense and readiness. I also want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services for his excellent work and commitment in this bill to rebuild our national defense posture. It is my strong conviction that the United States' involvement in leadership in the conflict in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has, in fact, undermined our national interest, not furthered it. The President's national security adviser Sandy Berger supposedly, according to the President, coined the phrase ``come home, America'' for the McGovern campaign in 1972. Apparently, we changed this to ``go everywhere, America'' and now to ``stay everywhere, America.'' While our motives may be good, the fact is that that is not much of a national interest policy. I would like to also thank our leadership in the committee for including a prohibition in the bill restricting the use of funds for Kosovo. My amendment simply strengthens the prohibition already in the bill against the use of Department of Defense funds towards the conflict in Kosovo by applying the prohibition for all defense funds for Fiscal Year 2000, not merely to funds authorized in this bill. The amendment also eliminates the invitation in the bill to the President to request additional funds for the conflict in Yugoslavia. We have already given too many taxpayer dollars to this ill-conceived operation which would be better used to strengthen our national defense and to be put into areas where we actually have direct national interests and world peace concerns as well as when we talk about this being $15 billion, $20 billion, $80 billion, whatever it turns out to be, that also means that domestic expenditures are being reduced which is a legitimate taxpayer question as far as where our national interest is. I want to make clear that I do not intend to limit support for refugees, nor does this amendment prevent missions specifically limited to rescuing United States military personnel or citizens in the same way that the underlying bill was not intended to prevent such activity. When given the opportunity a few weeks ago, the House of Representatives failed to support U.S. involvement in the bombing campaign in Yugoslavia. While we all hope for eventual peace, the many reasons to oppose involvement remain today. Reasons to oppose any additional funding for Kosovo include: The potential permanent placement of U.S. ground troops in a region secondary to our national interests where forces will be at risk from violence on both sides. The continued redirection of funds essential to restoring United States military readiness. Let me address one question that we have been debating here, is could funds be diverted from this bill. In fact as I pointed out in the supplemental, there are not restrictions that keep funds from being moved. We often play in the Federal Government these games where, ``Oh, we're not directly funding the supplies for the troops, what we do is just replace the supplies that were sent.'' So that the supply stream that is in the military currently that we were supposedly putting in for military readiness and buildup will be diverted over there and the new funds will merely go to replace what is being diverted. We have seen billions of dollars that were not allocated for Kosovo already spent, and it is disingenuous to say that, ``Oh, there would be another supplemental that would take the additional funds'' because they are diverting funds that are already there for troop training, for the gas, for the armaments and so on, and this has disguised the costs of this war and continues to do it. When we say we are building the readiness of our armed forces but do not restrict the funds from being directly or indirectly transferred to Kosovo, it is less than straightforward. Furthermore, we are continuing to undermine the U.S. troop morale because they are being asked to do more with less and are being deployed at a rate like never before. That not only includes our active military but it also includes our Reserve and Guard where we are seeing a drop in reenlistments. The fact that the NATO air war accelerated and augmented the tragic refugee crisis which we are and will continue to support financially through other areas. That is not arguing that he was not an evil man and is not an evil man. I am speaking of President Milosevic. Or that other leaders in countries in the Balkans did not practice genocide. The fact is it is not clear what was going to happen and to what extent it was going to happen. Furthermore, the additional confusion which is added to our foreign policy priorities when we fail to establish a clear standard for humanitarian intervention while clearly undermining our relationships with international powers that clearly impact high priority U.S. national security interests including China and Russia. Let me explain that. It is terrible. I was in the camps in Macedonia, too. I spent a whole afternoon talking to refugees. You cannot deny, any citizen cannot deny who has talked to these people that throats were slit, that there are mass graves, that there were rapes. The question is, that is also occurring in many other parts of the world. What is our standard for intervention? That is the question here. And when? Is it just because they are white? That is a kind of question we have to confront with ourselves, just because CNN is in a certain part of the world. Why are we not in Sudan? What are the compelling reasons why we would intervene in one country and not another? Furthermore, to divert these resources like the last carrier over to the Persian Gulf so another carrier could be diverted into the Mediterranean leaving us blind in Asia where clearly we have potential coming conflicts between India, China and China's client states like Pakistan and North Korea and Japan, where clearly there are world peace major issues at stake and we are bogged down now in Iraq, in Bosnia, now in Haiti and now potentially even greater in Kosovo. The continuous undermining of the stability of neighboring democracies like Macedonia and impeding the democratic position of Montenegro. The U.S. policy of supporting, at least tacitly, the Kosovo Liberation Army which has some established ties to narcotics trafficking and terrorism targeted at Americans. One of the fundamental questions here in the ironies of this agreement is that we did not support the Kosovo Liberation Army and yet at the same time we are now going to accomplish for Milosevic one of the goals that he had in disarming them, at least temporarily. The undermining of NATO when we define its continuing existence as dependent upon as the defeat of a sovereign country with a history of internal conflict which offers no direct threat to a NATO member. We constantly heard about article 5 which was supposedly the stability of Europe. Now, how in the world have we advanced the stability of Europe? We have Macedonia and Montenegro teetering, we have Greece with domestic conflict. We had Romania and Hungary concerned on the northern border. We have Russia, a historic ally of Serbia and a rising nationalist movement in Russia that we have given credibility to and potentially with the switch in the government of Russia having their armed troops on the ground in a very dicey type of situation in an area where we thought we had expelled them. We have a general and potentially and most likely an independent Kosovo in the middle of Europe. An armed Muslim state in the center of Europe will not add to the stability. I point that out because I did not meet a single Kosovar who was ever willing to serve under a Serbian government. Furthermore, what does this mean in the concept of independent states, if the Kosovars have no intention of ever serving under a Serbian government? Does this now mean that in Palestine we are giving a blank check to the Palestinians to have an independent state separate from Israel? What about the Kurds in Turkey? There is a very difficult international policy question underneath this supposed peace settlement that I say puts our world positions at greater risk than we had when we first went in. Furthermore, it is no wonder that China and Russia in the earlier question of when we are going to intervene in a humanitarian intervention, part of the concern here around the world, this is not a Christian moral position. I could argue from a Christian moral position that we should intervene anywhere. And when Russians started bombing Chechnya we should have gone in. But what are our criterias? If they are a big partner, we do not go in? If they are a little trade partner, we do go? It is not clear. Because the terror and the murder is happening in many places throughout the world and was not extraordinarily greater in this area until we started the process. It was terrible but it was not extraordinarily greater than anywhere else in about 30 to 40 countries. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is if we should not be involved, then we should not be involved in either the war or the peacekeeping which is not necessarily the cessation of hostilities and may in fact even be an Iraq situation where he plays this like a yo-yo. My amendment simply provides, if we should not be there and we should not stay there, then we should not fund the money. We then bear part of that responsibility. My amendment provides Members of this House the opportunity to vote in a manner consistent with their consciences and the congressional responsibility to use wisely the constitutional spending power which is the power of the House. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, many members of the community in my district were saddened at the recent untimely death of Dr. Stanley Wissman of Fort Wayne. Dr. Wissman made many valuable contributions to the Northeast Indiana medical community and was particularly known for his kindness to his patients and their families. I would like to extend my condolences to his family and to include in the Record a recent editorial from the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette discussing his life and work. [The Journal Gazette, Thursday, May 27, 1999] Wissman Set Examples Both Unique and Universal Death--especially unexpected death--has a perverse ability to highlight a life, to bring its finest qualities to the surface and leave them shining in the memories of friends and loved ones. In so doing, it honors those traits in us all. Stanley Wissman's sudden death is having that affect at Parkview Hospital this week. The beloved neurologist and patient champion was only 52 when he died Monday, and the shock is still rippling across the hospital and the regional medical community. In a time of national anguish about values and character, Wissman demonstrated why people still have hope for our cantankerous species. The resume is only part of the story. Yes, Wissman was an avid medical researcher. Yes, he was a visionary administrator for the hospital's rehabilitation unit. And, yes, he was an enthusiastic educator; he and his wife, Mary Ann, worked together on a program called ``Brain Attack'' to teach medical workers and the public that damage from strokes can be reduced by quick response. But it is Stanley Wissman's easy approachability--his warm humaneness--that his colleagues recall so sadly. Rebutting all the stereotypes of aloof and busy physicians in the era of managed care, he is remembered as a gentleman who found time to really listen to patients--as well as to co-workers on any step of the hospital hierarchy. Being brilliant and accomplished and acclaimed are all quite wonderful--and rare. In the end, however, anyone can be like Stanley Wissman. All it takes is a little kindness. Stanley D. Wissman, M.D., 52, died Monday at Parkview Hospital. Born in Fort Wayne, he was a doctor with Fort Wayne Neurological Center since 1976. He was also a medical director of the rehabilitation unit and chairman of the neurology subcommittee at Parkview Hospital and associate clinical professor of Neurology at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis. Surviving are his wife, Mary Ann; two daughters, Jennifer Rosenkranz of Reno, Nev., and Alicia Jordan of Nashville, Tenn.; a son, Stephen of Nashville; a stepdaughter, Andrea Tone of Fort Wayne; a stepson, Alex Tone of Fort Wayne; his mother, Ruth L. Wissman of Fort Wayne; two brothers, William W. of Indianapolis and Gary L. of Fort Wayne; a sister, Karen Lewis of Fort Wayne; and a grandchild. Services at 11:30 a.m. Thursday at St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church, 4916 Trier Road, with calling an hour before services. Calling also from 2 to 8 p.m. Wednesday at D.O. McComb & sons Maplewood Park Funeral Home, 4017 Maplecrest Road. Burial in Catholic Cemetery. Memorials to Bishop Dwenger High School Tuition Assistance or Ryan Kanning Muscular Dystrophy Fund.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairman, I want to thank our chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), as well as the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie); Mr. Buyer has been a tireless defender of trying to advance the rights and the additional support of our armed forces throughout the world. I rise in strong support of the Buyer-Abercrombie amendment to authorize members of the uniformed services to participate in the Federal Thrift Savings Plan. Madam Chairman, with the exception of the military, the Congress has already acted to give virtually every other Federal employee access to tax-deferred savings. We have even authorized the 960,000 employees eligible for the Civil Service Retirement System, CRS, the option to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan. Fully 61 percent of those employees are making contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan; and if they are investing in the common stock option, they are benefiting from a rate of return in excess of 30 percent over the last 4 years. This is simply an amendment to provide equity and fairness to one of the most deserving populations in America, the men and women who serve our Nation in uniform. At a time when most Americans are benefiting from a strong economy with immense growth in personal wealth using tax-deferred savings military personnel are denied the opportunity. Given the sacrifices being made by military members and their families today, difficult and often hazardous working conditions, long deployments from home, long working hours, limited funding for parts and other on-the-job resources, underfunded quality of life programs, the uniformed services should be the last group denied the opportunity to invest in their own future. We attempted earlier this year to address the pay inequities, as we did in the past Congress, because we were increasing Federal employees and other areas, but not our armed forces. This is an attempt to expand not only the pay question, but the benefits that other government employees get to the military, who should be the first to get these benefits, not the last. There is every indication that military people want to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan and are willing to make the financial sacrifices necessary to benefit from the Thrift Savings Plan. It is time to set the record straight. Vote ``yes'' on the Buyer-Abercrombie amendment, and I again want to congratulate the chairman for his efforts.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise with grave concern today, both for the stature and status of our United States armed forces which desperately need a buildup and revisions with our national capacity to defend ourselves because of the trickling and actual flood of secrets from this country to China. But how we can debate today a bill without dealing with the issue of Kosovo, I do not understand. In the supplemental appropriations bill, we were supposedly rebuilding our armed forces. But we allowed reprogramming to occur from the buildup towards Kosovo. We had rapid deployment force moneys without a restriction for Kosovo. And in this bill, as of last night, the bill that went to the membership had a ban on funds from this bill being used for the war in the Balkans. But mysteriously it disappeared. Apparently, the other party was notified this morning that it was out, but in our notices to our members we did not realize until we come to the floor and get ready for debate that no longer is there a protection in this bill and the bill that was distributed to the membership; not only were they not going to allow the debate, but the bill that was given to us had the impression that it had a ban in. I had an amendment that would have restricted the funds even more broadly than that, but that is not in order. How we can debate about our Armed Forces and whether we need to rebuild and restructure our armed forces and not debate the one thing that is depleting, that is unifying Jimmy Carter and his great editorial today in the New York Times saying civilians are victims of our flawed approach, and Henry Kissinger and an increasing majority of Americans realizing that we are burning up in a futile effort, in an effort over there that is actually worsening world conditions without accomplishing its goals; how we can have a defense authorization debate and, for that matter, an appropriations debate without allowing amendments that would restrict these funds in the name of a military buildup while armed forces are being destroyed is beyond me. I have not voted against a rule this year or a procedure, but I cannot in good conscience vote for this rule.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we in fact have been bringing it up. And our leadership, as my colleague well knows, has a very small majority and it is very difficult to work out. And when we cannot work it out, we have no choice but to bring it to the full Congress and debate it bill by bill. Agriculture has the misfortune of being the first bill up. My colleagues have basically stayed almost at a flat freeze. And the argument here is not with agriculture in particular, but the process. I believe we ought to air this through the entire process because the numbers are going to be greater variations in the future subcommittees than they are in agriculture. But agriculture was picked because it was supposed to be the least controversial. And what the American people are seeing and the Speaker is seeing and the Members of the House are, even this bill is controversial because it is a test of where we are going as far as our budget process and how we can try to reach those goals. But once again, I want to agree with the basic statement of my colleague. The problem is that we have unrealistic 302(b)s and my colleagues did indeed in their subcommittee stay within that, but that the overall category is fallacious and that is what we need to bring out.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct. It was not the Democratic side of the aisle that produced these unrealistic expectations. Many of us have concerns, as the gentleman from Oklahoma has pointed out, that these things should be done in an independent and bipartisan way. When we think our leadership is wrong, we will speak up, as when we think her leadership is wrong.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Once again I want to state that I actually favor increased agricultural research, and having grown up in the furniture industry, as well as understanding a lot of this, I am not even sure I am going to vote for this amendment. I am listening to the debate on it. But I want to make an additional point, and that is there have been a number of comments about the amendment process and how we, in fact, as Members learn. I am on seven different subcommittees. The idea that I am going to sit in every single appropriations subcommittee and listen as every single proposal comes up, to hear all the background, is ridiculous. What we have as a Member, the only option when we get the final bill, unless it is a high-profile event, is to deal with it after we get the appropriations bill, if we are lucky enough to get the appropriations bill before we vote, to look at it and see if there is anything here, if this bill exceeds the budget caps, that we believe should be looked at and debated on the House floor. And that is, in fact, what we are going through. There are Members who are proposing that we are supposed to sit, as though we do not have other committees, on every single debate item. Now, presumably, if the committee has done its work well, and the subcommittee, they will be able to defend particular things. But I have another concern and that is that one point that has been made on this floor seems to resonate a lot with me. And that is that agriculture, while I do not believe it is being picked on in the nature of all the bills, guess what the only bill that Members of Congress cannot reduce is? It is our own branch appropriations. We are not allowed to come to the floor and offer amendments to reduce expenditures on Congress because we might micromanage Congress. Now, we are allowed to come to the floor to micromanage other agencies under House rules. But under the Democrats and under the Republicans, we are not allowed to come to the floor and do our own. The reason this becomes important is because we keep hearing about these allocations to committee and how agriculture, which in fact has been very reasonable and stayed pretty much on an even keel in the budget, is getting battered in this process here, at least debated. But some, like Labor HHS, where our education and health expenditures are, have a $5 billion reduction coming. We all know that that is not going to happen. At a time of school violence and the pressures we have on education in America, we are not going to reduce it by $5 billion. And the Department of the Interior, our national parks and environment questions, is getting reduced by 18.7 percent in these great 302(b) allocations we are hearing. But guess what? The Members of Congress are going to get a 7.3 percent increase for their personal offices. Members of Congress are going to get a 5.6 percent increase for their committees. In fact, the Committee on Appropriations is going to get a 14.9 percent increase, meaning the committees are going to get a 7 percent increase. And the leadership is going to get an 8.4 percent increase, plus the 660,000 they got in the supplemental bill, meaning they are going to get an 11.7 percent increase. When we come with 302(b) allocations that propose unrealistic cuts in environment and education, but have increases in it for this House, for our personal offices, for the committees, for the leadership, and then tell the Members of this House that we can amend everybody else's bills to reduce expenditures, but we cannot reduce the expenditures on ourselves, I believe we have a problem here. We are starting to act in many ways like the Congresses before us. I ran in 1994 because I wanted to see a change. Part of the debate we are hearing in the appropriations process and the patience we are hearing from the subcommittee chairmen and the committee chairmen have been magnanimous as we worked through Labor HHS and other things over the last few years. And we need to have this debate. But I am very concerned about double standards being put on the Committee on Appropriations vis-a-vis legislative branch appropriations and letting that go up but telling them they have to meet these unrealistic caps in many of the other subcommittees, particularly when we all know that at the tail end we are likely to bump into this so- called train wreck in the supplemental. So I think we best not talk about whether somebody is in their 302(b). The subcommittee chairman has no choice but to work with that number. But, in fact, this debate is far beyond the 302(b)s because they are not realistic. And there is no way to illustrate that better than that Members of Congress and their personal offices are getting 5.6 percent, that Members of Congress will get 7.3 percent for their personal offices, the committees will get 7 percent, the leadership gets 11.7 percent, but these same allocations are reducing education by $5 billion, education and health and Interior, by 18 percent.

Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Some of the attacks on my friend from Oklahoma have been downright humorous, the fact that he was accused of unilaterally trying to tee off on America's farmers. I want to speak out for my friend from Oklahoma and say he is willing to tee off on anybody who goes over the budget. This is not about agriculture. This is about a process of how we are going to try to keep within our budget agreement. I want to say up front that I support this bill and furthermore, I believe we do not devote enough to agricultural research. Furthermore, I will add that I believe that in the specifics of much of this agricultural research, much of it can be easily mocked and made fun of, but it is the backbone of the agriculture of this country. Furthermore, I do not know enough about this particular project to know whether this is indeed real research or whether or not it was put in because some Member of Congress had clout. It is naive for Members of Congress to walk up here and say that we, in fact, have to trust our leadership, trust our Committee on Appropriations. We should at least be willing to challenge occasionally. If the Members of Congress do not want their projects struck, they should come up here and defend them, as the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of this subcommittee, eloquently explained what the intent of this was. Where are the Members who represent this particular university in this particular State explaining what it is? Because this should be an opportunity for those who favor agricultural research to explain why this is in the bill. A lot of this is a fight about the process. We hear that this is a ``filibuster'' or that we have had over 100 amendments. We have not had over 100 amendments. We do not know how many amendments there are going to be. But if we are worried that this is going to slow our process down, we should have had more days in session earlier this year; we should not be taking four additional days next week, because this is what Congress is about. We do not presume to know when we go into the appropriations process. There has been a lot of discussion whether we should go to the subcommittee, whether we should offer amendments.