** semi-OT ** NY Times. House Votes Small Fraction of Money Sought for I.M.F.
[Not going to be good for Russia/Latin America/Asia. Isolationist, "Know Nothing" Congressional Republicans whack off with ideology while the world burns. Complete idiots. The West has saved $1 trillion due to the end of the Cold War (lower commodity prices, lower defense spending) and we can't afford $18B! I hope blame is assigned correctly if the US supertanker goes down.]
nytimes.com
September 18, 1998
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
ASHINGTON -- The House tonight approved only a fraction
of the nearly $18 billion that President Clinton is seeking for
the International Monetary Fund.
The action, which prompted a Presidential veto threat, left the agency
in limbo as the I.M.F.'s reserves dwindle and economic crises
spread.
The Senate has approved the full amount, and there is still a chance
that when both houses meet in the next few weeks to iron out their
differences on this and other issues, they will agree to provide the
Clinton Administration's full request.
But even if they do, the lending agency's financing is tied up with other
contentious matters, such as restrictions on international family
planning, that have also drawn veto threats. So, full funds are by no
means certain.
Many in the House say they have doubts about the I.M.F.'s internal
integrity and the use of American taxpayer money for what they say
are risky overseas investments the agency makes without proper
accountability.
Republican leaders had blocked the House from considering the
$17.9 billion requested as it took up a $12.5 billion bill that finances
many of the nation's overseas assistance programs. The G.O.P.
leaders wrote rules to include only $3.4 billion for the agency,
procedurally blocking an attempt by Democrats to provide the
additional $14.5 billion sought by the President.
The overall foreign operations bill provides economic assistance for
international groups such as the World Bank and the Export-Import
Bank, aid to former Soviet republics and money for the Peace Corps.
The legislation includes language barring United States assistance to
foreign groups that perform abortions or violate abortion laws of
foreign countries.
There was no separate vote on the agency financing, but the overall
bill passed tonight, 255 to 161.
Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, who is leading
the opposition, said that the bill, which provides $316 million less than
this year's levels, reduced the President's flexibility and in terms of
vision and money, failed to fulfill the nation's role as a global power.
Representative Gerald B.H. Solomon, Republican of New York,
speaking of the I.M.F. legislation, said the public resents giving
money to countries like Russia that are bad investments, where the
money will "go in the front door and out the back door."
Arguing for the full amount, Representative David R. Obey,
Democrat of Wisconsin, said: "How long do people in this House
think we can survive as an island of economic success in a world of
economic chaos? The answer is, not very long."
The Administration said in a statement that failure to provide the full
amount would undermine the United States' global leadership and
expose workers, businesses and farmers to unacceptable economic
risks.
"The President would veto the bill if it were presented to him in its
current form," said the statement, a carefully calibrated phrasing that
carries less weight than a quotation from the President himself but is
more forceful than the more typical statement, which couches such
threats as recommendations by advisers.
The veto threat is only the latest of several issued by the
Administration on 13 spending bills now moving through Congress.
The bills are supposed to be passed and signed by Oct. 1, the start of
the new fiscal year. Both the House and the Senate bought
themselves some extra time Thursday, voting to finance all
Government programs at the current year's levels through Oct. 9. The
action puts off Congress's annual confrontation with the White House
for nine days.
In the daylong debate in the House, members argued most heatedly
over whether to repeal a ban on all American assistance to the former
Soviet republic of Azerbaijan. The Administration wanted Congress
to lift the ban, saying it had hindered United States negotiators in
appearing neutral in the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Opponents, who prevailed, argued that lifting the ban would reward a
corrupt regime that has engaged in ethnic cleansing.
Most strenuous in favor of the repeal was Representative Bob
Livingston, Republican of Louisiana and chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. Some members suggested that Livingston
seemed to be carrying the banner for American oil companies, which
are seeking a share in a hugely lucrative pipeline through the Caspian
Sea region -- and are also a vital force in Livingston's New Orleans
district.
Livingston conceded during the debate that oil companies "might"
benefit from lifting the ban, but, he said, so would the industrialized
Western world.
Representative David E. Bonior, Democrat of Michigan and the
minority whip, declared, "The big oil lobby has dollar signs in its
eyes."
The House voted 231 to 182 to keep the ban in place. The measure
is not part of the Senate's foreign operations bill, and its fate in the
eventual House-Senate conference is uncertain.
Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Marketplace
Quick News | Page One Plus | International | National/N.Y. | Business | Technology |
Science | Sports | Weather | Editorial | Op-Ed | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Diversions |
Job Market | Real Estate | Travel
Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today
Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company
|
