June 14, 1977
Page 18941
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota is correct in conceding that multi-year commitments such as those involved in H.R. 5262 must comply with the Budget and Appropriations processes prescribed in section 401 of the Budget Act. That conclusion cannot be doubted. However, I take issue with the Senator's assertion that U.S. foreign policy requires that the U.S. Government be able to make binding multi-year international financial commitments without prior appropriations.
First, I am aware of no evidence which would suggest that the procedures established under the Budget Act have impeded the orderly conduct of U.S. foreign relations. I note that the State Department in the letter from Mr. BENNETT has refused to take a position on this important issue, and the administration has never indicated that it was unable to implement an effective foreign economic policy because of the procedural requirements of the Budget Act.
Also, I understand that the temporary small decrease in U.S. voting power caused by the qualified commitment being made by the United States to IDA will not have any appreciable impact on U.S. influence within IDA.
Nor do I accept the Senator from Minnesota's statement that, by requiring H.R. 5262 to conform to the requirements of the Budget Act, we threaten the viability of IDA as a lending institution.
Other donor countries must be aware of our legislative processes and the mere fact that the United States cannot make any unconditional multi-year commitment without prior congressional appropriation does not imply that the word of our Representatives is of no consequence.
For instance, this Nation's commitment to human rights and freedom of all people is one of our most important obligations. It is not enshrined in a firm contractual commitment but is obviously of considerable significance to all nations and all people throughout the world. Is that commitment rendered any less meaningful because it cannot be described as "firm" in a strict legal sense? I think the answer is self-evident. Clearly, the world can and does rely on the good word of the United States and should not hesitate to support an institution such as the IDA simply because the United States has not put its cash up front.
Furthermore, in view of our strong record in support of the concept of multilateral assistance and the international financial institutions which we helped create, it strikes me as rather strange that the other donor countries should now question the integrity of the U.S. pledge by insisting that 80 percent of all contributions for any given year must be made before the World Bank is allowed to make IDA lending commitments. The fault lies not in our legislative processes but rather in the myopic perceptions of other governments which seem to have adopted an inordinately conservative policy vis-a-vis the World Bank's soft loan window — the IDA. Surely, the U.S. conditional commitment should not be considered a hollow promise in light of our long term support for the World Bank and other IFI's.
Congress will continue to support our President's policies vis-a-vis the IFI's and the important work they carry out in underdeveloped countries. However, our Appropriations Committee must continue to have the last word on financial commitments if the integrity of our budget processes are to be maintained. I am confident that in carrying out their responsibilities, these committees will continue to take into consideration U.S. national interests.
Finally, I remind the distinguished Senator from Minnesota that it is virtually impossible for us to adopt special procedures for each function in the budget while maintaining a unified budget. Last week we heard a plea from the Banking Committee for a special accounting method for U.S. assistance to housing. Fortunately, we defeated that provision of the bill. Clearly, that debate showed that introducing exceptions to the Budget Act through authorizing legislation cannot be reconciled with the overriding policies which we are seeking to implement in the Budget Act.
The Senator will recall that one of the reasons for adopting section 401 of the Budget Act was to enable Congress to control backdoor spending. That objective cannot be achieved if the United States is able to enter into multi-year financial commitments solely on the basis of authorizing legislation. The discipline of the budget resolution procedures would be completely subverted if what the Senator from Minnesota proposes for the foreign affairs function is allowed to go into effect.