[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 24436-24437]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXPLAINING MY VOTE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 10, 2003

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, no obligation which we have 
as elected Representatives is greater than that of making clear to 
those we are privileged to represent why we vote as we do, especially 
on important issues. Because debate time on the President's request for 
an $87 billion appropriation for Iraq and Afghanistan will almost 
certainly be far too limited for Members fully to explain themselves, I 
ask unanimous consent to put here into the Congressional Record an 
article which I wrote, and which was published in the Boston Globe on 
October 10, outlining my position on this issue.

                 [From the Boston Globe, Oct. 10, 2003]

                       Paying for the War in Iraq

                           (By Barney Frank)

       The best argument for refusing President Bush's request 
     that we put America $87 billion deeper in debt to pay for the 
     mistakes he has made in Iraq comes from a very good source--
     George W. Bush.
       In objecting to the pay increase voted for federal 
     employees, the president said that paying for it would 
     require reductions in other domestic programs--e.g., 
     environmental cleanup, aid to education, community 
     development block grants, and transportation. After 2\1/2\ 
     years of making light of the more than $1.5 trillion that its 
     budgets will add to the federal debt during his term, the 
     administration has rediscovered the importance of controlling 
     deficits and argues that additional federal expenditure on 
     some items must come at the expense of others. So, if we do 
     as the president asks and appropriate $87 billion for Iraq, 
     it will force reductions in other areas of federal spending 
     that have already been cut below the barest minimum.
       But while it would be a dereliction of my duty to my 
     constituents simply to ratify the president's proposal, 
     neither would it be responsible to reject it categorically. I 
     cast the right vote when I opposed the president's decision 
     to go to war in Iraq. None of the major reasons advanced at 
     the time for this effort has been vindicated by events. 
     Indeed, since the war in Iraq, our role as a force for 
     stability has deteriorated in virtually every trouble spot. 
     Syria, the Palestinians, North Korea, Iran--where there has 
     been a change in America's ability to work for a reduction in 
     violence, tension, and instability, it has been for the 
     worse.
       But while the war was unwise, it was also a fact, and it 
     imposes on Americans' responsibilities that we cannot escape. 
     Elections have consequences, even when they are decided as 
     dubiously as our last presidential contest.
       However, recognizing that we have both moral and practical 
     obligations in this regard does not mean rubber-stamping the 
     Bush administration's request. There are three ways in which 
     Congress should modify the proposal.
       First, while it is important that we provide funding for 
     the military to pay for this war, we should not vote for 
     every dollar requested. The president is justifiably seeking 
     funds to replace the weapons and ammunition consumed in the 
     war in Iraq and in the expensive occupation of that country. 
     But some of that ought to come from a redirection of the tens 
     of billions the Pentagon is still spending on unneeded 
     weapons that were conceived for the Cold War era. Nuclear 
     attack submarines, defense against intercontinental ballistic 
     missiles, and other weapons were justified by the need to 
     confront a Soviet superpower. As one conservative commentator 
     recently noted, the administration's request for $65 billion 
     for the Pentagon is aimed at preserving the current weapons 
     procurement policy, which includes a substantial amount for 
     Cold War armaments rather than the military capability we 
     need for the current world situation.
       Second, the proposals to engage in social spending in Iraq 
     include several billion dollars which may he desirable but do 
     not rise to the level of necessity--especially if it must 
     come at the expense of equally important social spending in 
     the United States and in desperately poor other nations in 
     the world.
       But wise reductions in both categories will still leave us 
     with a large amount to spend, especially given the ineptitude 
     of the administration's efforts to get others to share the 
     burden.
       Here the congressional response should be clear. None of 
     this money should be added to the national debt, nor should 
     it be allowed to exacerbate the severe problems that already 
     result from inadequate funding in so many domestic programs. 
     It is well past time for Congress to repudiate the Bush 
     doctrine that you can pay for two wars with three tax cuts.
       Further expenditures for the aftermath of the Iraq war must 
     be funded by undoing the Bush tax cuts on incomes of $200,000 
     and above. I will not vote for any additional appropriation 
     to pay for the war in Iraq unless it is completely financed 
     by changes in the tax code that will undo some of the tax 
     reduction now being enjoyed--and scheduled to be enjoyed 
     further--by the richest 2 percent of Americans.
       We should be undoing tax cuts to produce far more than $87 
     billion. Even before the $87 billion request, the Bush 
     policies were slated to add $1 trillion to the national debt 
     in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 alone. But at the very least, 
     the president ought to be willing to join us in paying for 
     the consequences of his policy in Iraq by cutting back on the 
     excesses of his fiscally irresponsible and socially 
     inequitable tax reductions.

[[Page 24437]]

       I will vote to meet America's obligations in Iraq even 
     though I thought we were wrong to incur them. But I will not 
     do so at the expense of important domestic social and 
     economic needs. Forcing Congress--and America--to make such a 
     choice will be damaging and divisive, and President Bush 
     should stop insisting that we do.

                          ____________________