[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 94 (Wednesday, July 19, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1273-E1274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       FOREIGN OPERATION, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 12, 2000

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4811) making 
     appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and 
     related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2001, and for other purposes.

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California. She has been a 
champion of justice in the developing world. She had been an advocate 
of American responsibility in the developing world. I know

[[Page E1274]]

that she offers her amendment with those noble intentions.
  While I strongly agree with the intentions, I must oppose the means. 
Unless debt relief is de-linked from a requirement of countries to 
follow IMF economic policies, the main beneficiary of Congressional 
funding for debt relief is the IMF. That is because the IMF will 
receive control of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, while poor 
countries will have to follow IMF dictates about government spending, 
health and education policy, monetary policy, and privatization.
  The IMF deserves much of the blame for the poverty, environmental 
degradation, and unemployment of heavily indebted poor countries, since 
it has been telling them what they could and could not do for decades. 
If the U.S. gives a real gift to the world's poorest countries, it 
should be freedom from the IMF's structural adjustment programs.
  Indeed, that is what civic leaders from developing countries are 
asking for Lidy B. Nacpil of Jubilee South, a coalition of Jubilee 2000 
campaigns from Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Caribbean 
sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee. In the letter, Congress 
was asked to ``oppose authorization of any funding mechanism that would 
empower the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to condition 
debt relief on adherence to macroeconomics and related structural 
adjustment programs. The effective imposition of these policies on our 
countries by the IMF, the World Bank and the other international 
financial institutions has had a devastating impact on large segments 
of our population, on our natural environments, as well as on our 
productive and reproductive capacities of our societies * * * It is the 
adjustment policies themselves, as the cause of our social, economic, 
and financial crises, which must be addressed.''
  Appropriations for the IMF and World Bank should be conditional. The 
IMF and World Bank should no longer be able to impose structural 
adjustment programs over the economic choices and options of developing 
world countries. Otherwise, we are deceiving ourselves that our good 
intentions will lead to good results. Indeed, the only time Congress 
can promote reform at the IMF and World Bank is when those institutions 
have a request for funds before us. As multilateral institutions, they 
are not directly subject to wishes of Congress. Instead, the U.S. has a 
representative at each institution who works, according to Treasury, at 
developing consensus among the other nations' representatives. The only 
moment when the IMF and World Bank are susceptible to the unmediated 
wishes of Congress is when they come to Congress for funds. Then 
Congress is able to condition release of such funds on changes in IMF 
and World Bank practices.
  Unfortunately, this amendment, however well-intended, places no new 
conditions on the IMF and World Bank. In fact, there is no requirement 
that the IMF and World Bank actually give any debt relief. Congress 
cannot take for granted that the funds we appropriate for debt relief 
will make a difference for the world's poorest citizens we hope to 
help. Congress has appropriated or authorized hundreds of millions of 
dollars to the IMF and World Bank in the past for debt relief, but 
almost none of it has been passed through to the poor countries as 
relief.
  Again, Congress is being asked to give hundreds of millions of 
dollars to an IMF and World Bank administered account. That is the only 
certain thing Congress is being asked to do. For the amount, let us set 
aside the obvious question of the IMF's and World Bank's sincerity. If 
Congress sends the IMF and World Bank funds for the goal of relieving 
the foreign debt burden, we should ask what the IMF and World Bank 
require of poor countries to qualify for the debt relief.
  According to the IMF and World Bank, it is not simply enough that a 
country be poor to qualify for debt relief. On the contrary, to 
qualify, countries must impose all sorts of harsh economic medicine to 
their countries. They must privatize national businesses. They must 
deregulate their banking industry; they must impose fees on social 
services--making the poor residents of poor countries pay for basic 
education and health services. They must be willing to allow the 
largest corporations in the world to take over ownership of their 
economies. They must open up their forests and minerals to large 
multinational corporations. They even sometimes have to oppose 
increases in their minimum wages. The IMF and World Bank then evaluate 
the countries' compliance with these painful prescriptions, and wait 
several years to see if the countries are repressive enough to make 
these policies stick.
  If the IMF and World Bank wanted to relieve the debts of the world's 
poorest countries, they could do so immediately and without any 
additional funds from Congress. The General Accounting Office has 
simply reported to Congress about the adequacy of IMF accounts. The 
cause of debt cancellation does not require further Congressional 
funds. The IMF and World Bank clearly do not want to cancel the debt of 
poor countries.
  Unlike the IMF and World Bank, I am in favor of immediate, 100 
percent debt cancellation for the world's poor countries. If Congress 
is to make a real difference in the lives of the world's poorest, it 
must put a stop to IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programs 
when these institutions ask for funds from Congress.

                          ____________________