Congressional Committee Averts Full IMF Funding

When faced with a barrage of media questions on why it appears he caved in and changed his mind on IMF funding, Livingston said, "We need to see some advancement toward sound business practices," on the part of the IMF. Indeed, this has been the position of many IMF opponents since early last year.

Thus, in just one day, the focus of the debate changed from, how much IMF reform language can opponents hope to instill in the IMF bill in exchange for full funding to, how much IMF reform language will be piled on top of the $3.5 billion IMF funding bill.

However, the Clinton Administration has threatened to veto the bill as is -- not just because of the lack of full IMF funding, but also because of the deep cuts in foreign aid. Still, before Clinton even has an opportunity to veto the bill, the measure must pass the House floor, where there surely be an attempt but IMF supporters to pass an Amendment providing the full $18 billion in funding. Early indications are that such an amendment is losing support among undecided House members who are beginning to question the wisdom of continuing U.S. support for the IMF.

If the measure does pass the House with only the $3.5 billion, it sill must pass muster with the Senate version of the bill which DOES include the $18 billion. Thus, a conference committee between House and Senate members is likely to be heated and may even kill the entire measure -- in which case, some Congressional insiders predict that the full $18 billion would be added into a continuing resolution at the end of the fiscal year.

In any even, opponents of the IMF are heralding the Appropriations markup as a significant victory. A victory, which may be short, lived if the IMF funding is re-established and passed by the House floor next week.

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic