[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 146 (Monday, October 25, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H10754-H10755]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP: LEAD BY EXAMPLE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I have introduced today a sense-of-
Congress resolution. This sense-of-Congress resolution simply says that 
if we are going to engage in an across-the-board cut in all the Federal 
agencies, then Members of Congress should accept a similar cut in their 
salaries.
  I would like to share the contents of my resolution:
  ``Whereas, Congress may pass an across-the-board funding reduction 
for Federal agencies to bring closure to the debate on Fiscal Year 2000 
funding levels;
  Whereas, lawmakers voted themselves a 3.4 percent cost-of-living 
adjustment this year;
  Whereas, salaries of Members of Congress would not be affected by an 
across-the-board reduction;
  Whereas, the rest of the Government's payroll would be affected by 
the proposed reduction, which would likely result in layoffs and 
temporary furloughs;
  Whereas, it is estimated that the reductions could force layoffs of 
39,000 military personnel; and
  Whereas, programs at the Department of Education, Department of 
Labor, and the Department of Health and Human Services, programs such 
as Meals on Wheels, the National Institutes of Health, Head Start, and 
the Safe and Drug Free Schools program would be reduced.
  Now, therefore, be it resolved that any across-the-board funding 
reduction for agencies in Fiscal Year 2000 should also include the same 
reduction for salaries of Members of Congress.''
  Why have I introduced this resolution? It is because a 1.4 percent 
reduction, as is being discussed, would lead to approximately 103,000 
fewer women, infants, and children from benefiting from the food 
assistance and nutrition programs offered under the WIC program.
  Title I, which provides educational benefits for disadvantaged 
students, would be cut by $109 million. Head Start would be cut so that 
some 6,700 fewer children would be able to benefit from Head Start 
programs.

[[Page H10755]]

  The Centers for Disease Control would be cut by approximately $6.7 
million. And a reduction of $35.7 million would take place in the area 
of substance abuse and mental health services, thereby denying over 
5,000 American citizens access to mental health treatment and drug 
abuse services.
  Vital programs for our farming community would be cut by $124 
million. A 1.4 percent reduction would result in $3.9 billion being 
cuts from defense. This cut would require that military services make 
cuts in recruiting and engage in force separations of up to 39,000 
military personnel.
  Madam Speaker, I think blanket cuts are unwise and unnecessary. But 
if the leadership of this House is intent on forcing such cuts 
indiscriminately on good programs as well as bad, then they ought to be 
willing to bear some of the burden themselves and take a pay cut.
  It is unseemly for this Congress to ask the American people to 
tighten their belts while not doing the same itself. With this sense-of 
Congress-resolution, I am simply asking that Members of Congress be 
consistent. If they really think it is wise to make blind cuts, then 
they should not be exempting their own salaries.
  Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of the leadership up here treating 
themselves as special people while imposing hardships on ordinary 
Americans.
  As we say in southern Ohio, what is good for the goose is good for 
the gander.

                          ____________________