EDITOR OF REDSTATE
More Questions Than Answers With H.R. 2346
Call your Congressman at 202-224-3121 and ask him to vote NO on H.R. 2346.
Just got this from the Hill:
The Conference Report includes new language telling the U.S. representative at the IMF to use their “voice and vote” to oppose the provision of loans to state sponsors of terrorism. Yet this language raises more questions than answers.
- At G-20 Summit the U.S. committed to provide $100 Billion for the New Arrangements to Borrow (included in the Supplemental), but also committed to make the program more “flexible.” While the IMF has not finalized the new flexibility for the program the discussion has centered on allowing more discretion for the managing director of the IMF to authorize transactions. Depending on how it is implemented it is unclear whether or not this new flexibility could deprive the United States of the opportunity to use its voice and vote to object to certain transactions.
- In addition, at the G-20 Summit the U.S. committed to supporting an allocation of $250 Billion in Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) to be distributed proportionally to ALL IMF Members. This action does not require Congressional approval provided that it is proportional for all Members. So while the language in the bill directs the IMF to oppose the provision of resources specifically to state sponsors of terrorism, the US and the IMF are moving forward with a policy that would have that exact effect because it would provide resources to all IMF Members, including state sponsors of terrorism.
These questions are exactly why IMF funding should proceed under regular order and not be included in an emergency supplemental that is not subject to amendment.