April 26, 1978
Page 11558
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, the concurrent resolution now pending, in the section dealing with international affairs, namely, function 150, provides for new budget authority of a year ago of $8 billion. That represents a 60-percent increase. But of that, part is for military sales and credits.
My proposal would reduce the total for the function of international affairs from $12.8 billion to $12.05 billion. In other words, it would be a reduction of $750 million.
This reduction amounts to 5.8 percent of the total of the budget authority for this function.
The objective is to reduce U.S. contribution to international financial institutions. Under Senate Concurrent Resolution 80. the U.S. contribution to these international banks would rise by $1.2 billion or 64 percent over 1978 budget authority.
I just think, Mr. President, that is unreasonable. This country has a lot of problems of its own. Besides that, this Government has a lot of problems of its own.
I am not sure that Washington realizes it. But I think the people throughout our Nation realize that continued and accelerated Government deficits represent the major cause of inflation.
I was interested in the Gallup poll, the results of which were published yesterday. The Gallup poll has been proven quite accurate in the past. The Gallup poll shows that the people of this country by a 9 to 1 ratio would prefer controlling inflation to a tax cut.
That is to me significant. I think most Americans feel that our taxes are too high. I think most Americans would like a tax cut. But most Americans, unlike most in Washington, realize that we cannot effectively reduce taxes unless we simultaneously get Government spending under control.
And just how one can justify increasing the contributions to the international financial institutions, through the use of tax funds, by 64 percent in this year is beyond me.
Of course, those who favor this huge increase will say, "Well, it is to help the developing countries; it will help other countries, and we need to do that."
Well, Mr. President, our Nation for the last 30 years has poured approximately $200 billion of American tax funds into helping other nations. We have a good record in that regard. I think somewhere along the line this Congress has to decide that there is a limit beyond which the use of American tax funds for foreign countries, to give away to foreign countries, must not go.
A $750 million reduction is what this amendment proposes. If this amendment is adopted, it would still leave an increase of about $2.5 billion in international affairs function, and also leave an increase for the international financial institutions.
Mr. President, in regard to these financial institutions, as we know, this money is turned over to foreign governments. Congress has no control.
I cannot prove it, but I am convinced that a great deal of this money turned over to foreign governments is being siphoned off by the leaders of some of those countries and is not being used for the purpose which Congress intended.
Another aspect of this question of appropriating funds to international financial banks is that when Congress reduces the requests that are made on behalf of the international financial banks for appropriations, the next year the administration comes in and adds back the figure that Congress had refused to appropriate the year before.
Unless Congress takes this matter seriously, this matter of vast tax funds that are being funneled into the international financial institutions, there will be no limit as to the vast amounts that will go to these international banking institutions.
I think this amendment is a reasonable one. I will say again that the total function carries a figure in the concurrent resolution of $12.8 billion, and this would reduce it by 5.8 percent or a total of $750 million.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, first, some general observations, if I may. The amendment of the distinguished Senator from Virginia is intended to reduce our contributions to international financial institutions such as the World Bank, the Inter-American Bank, the Asian Development Bank.
These, of course, are multilateral institutions created by us, in concert with other nations, to carry out the international community's view of its responsibility toward developing countries. Our relations with these countries affect our security interests as well as the shape of the world in which we live. It is not a responsibility to be taken lightly or a national interest to be ignored.
We have struggled over several years now since World War II to find effective ways to advance that interest, to safeguard it, without abusing our taxpayers or without contributing to unwise ventures abroad.
For as long as I have been in the Senate, we have come increasingly to regard multilateral institutions like these international financial institutions as one of the better ways to discharge this international responsibility.
These funds are not turned over to foreign governments by us but are turned over to these international banks. As I understand it, most payments by the banks are made on vouchers representing actual contracts.
For example, our contribution to the World Bank is 23 percent. It just happens that 25 percent of the purchases made by the World Bank is made in America. purchases of American goods. So I think it is correct to say, and it should be clearly stated in the RECORD, that these funds are not turned over for the arbitrary use of foreign governments, but are funneled through multilateral institutions to be handled in a responsible way. These funds are used with precision to advance the objectives for which we make the contributions. I think that ought to be made clear.
Now, Mr. President, I understand that it is not easy to make the case for this commitment of national resources. I know the distinguished Senator from Hawaii (Mr. INOUYE) has struggled with this problem. I think he has made tremendous accomplishments over the years he has had the responsibility for the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. I am delighted to see him on the floor at the present time.
To return to this amendment and our relationship to the international banks, let me say this: The other day the Senator from Virginia and I had some discussion as to how we became involved in these commitments. Well, these commitments, of course, are the result of agreements with the banks entered into by our Secretary of the Treasury and agreements by the finance ministers of the other member countries of these banks. The commitment is then reduced to writing in the form of a letter.
I have here, for example, a letter dated November 28, 1977 from the Secretary of the Treasury, W. Michael Blumenthal, to the Honorable Robert S. McNamara, President of the International Development Association, which represents our commitment to the fifth replenishment of IDA, the soft loan window of the World Bank. The letter by its express terms indicates that this commitment is subject to obtaining the necessary appropriations. But, nevertheless, it is a commitment, and it is a commitment which the other member countries have kept to date.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter be included in the RECORD as evidence of the form which our commitments take.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, D.C.,
November 28, 1977.
Hon. ROBERT S. MCNAMARA,
President,
International Development Association
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. MCNAMARA: As United States Governor, I hereby cast the votes of the United States in favor of Resolution No. 102 of the Board of Governors of the International Development Association.
The United States hereby agrees to pay, in accordance with the terms of Resolution No. 102, to the International Development Association the sum of $800 million. The United States also agrees, subject to obtaining the necessary appropriations, to pay to the Association an additional sum of $1.6 billion, in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid Resolution.
Sincerely yours,
W. MICHAEL BLUMENTHAL.
Mr. MUSKIE. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a letter from Mr. Blumenthal's predecessor as Secretary of the Treasury, William E. Simon, representing our commitment to the Fourth Replenishment of IDA, illustrating the way in which commitments are entered into.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
JANUARY 17. 1975.
Hon. ROBERT S. MCNAMARA
President International Development Association,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. MCNAMARA: As United States Governor, I hereby cast the votes of the United States in favor of Resolution No. 92 of the Board of Governors of the International Development Association.
The United States hereby agrees to contribute to the International Development Association the sum of $1,500,000.000 as provided in Resolution No. 92, to be paid in four installments of $375,000,000 each, beginning in fiscal year 1976. Letters of credit for each of the installments will be delivered only after enactment of an appropriation therefor. The requirement of Congressional action on appropriations from customary United States legal procedures.
Sincerely yours.
WILLIAM E. SIMON.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in my judgment Congress should consider following through on these commitments, as Congress has the responsibility and obligation to do or not to do. To do otherwise, in my judgment, would break faith with other foreign assistance donors.
The United States has been successful in encouraging other nations to share the burden of development assistance. We have championed "burden-sharing" and we have led other nations in that respect. As a result, over the past decade, the American share of worldwide aid has steadily dropped in coordination with increases by other donors. In other words, it has served our interest to get other countries involved. They have become involved, and the result of that has been to reduce the burden on ourselves by sharing it with others. It is in the spirit of that burden sharing that other countries have made their commitments and kept them. We are the only member country which has not, at this point, fully met its IDA IV commitment. The other member countries have kept their commitments in the 3-year time frame, and one country in 4 years. We have not yet fully met that commitment.
The amendment of the Senator from Virginia would, in effect, unilaterally terminate U.S. contributions already agreed to. It would severely damage current U.S. efforts to increase overall development assistance while slowly reducing the U.S. share. The proper time for such an amendment, Mr. President, in my judgment, is not the unilateral course advocated today, but is when authorizations for new multilateral agreements come before the Senate.
If we have decided not to keep our commitments to other countries, we ought at least to put them on notice. That could be our posture the next time around. Let us not, however, renege on our commitments at this time.
Mr. President, the committee's recommendation already assumes a reduction of $600 million in budget authority from the President's request of $5.5 billion for economic development assistance. This is a significant cut, at a time when the President and the American people recognize the interdependence of the United States and many developing nations, and seek to improve human rights. A further cut in the International Affairs function could reduce the President's options as he deals with developing nations, and undercut the executive-legislative human rights policy.
The next point I would make, Mr. President, is that the middle income developing countries, which would be affected by cuts in foreign assistance, are the fastest growing market for American exports. Further cuts in the International Affairs function would reduce the amount of long-term loans for the multilateral development banks. This reduction could constrain the growth of American export markets in the middle income developing countries.
So on both counts, Mr. President, it is in the national interest to oppose this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point a memorandum which I inserted in the RECORD the other day, but which I think would be useful to the reader of the RECORD if inserted again at this point, describing IDA IV and IDA V and how they relate to this budget resolution.
There being no objection, the memorandum was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
MEMORANDUM
To Senator MUSKIE.
From Charles Flickner.
Date April 24, 1978.
Subject The Difference Between IDA IV and V.
The terms IDA IV and IDA V refer to the fourth and fifth replenishments of the International Development Bank (IDA), the soft-loan window of the World Bank. "Replenishment" is the technical term for a multi-year schedule of donations by the wealthier nations (mostly in North America, Europe, and East Asia) which belong to the World Bank and the regional development banks. The total amount, individual country shares, and length of each replenishment are decided at a special negotiating session by designated finance ministry official. The results of the session are submitted to governments (and their legislatures) for approval: agreements go into effect only after-wards.
The authorization for the U.S. to enter into IDA IV was enacted in 1974 (P. L. 93-373). It committed the U.S. to provide $375 million a year for four years, for a total of $1.5 billion. The other donor countries extended their donations over three years, beginning in 1975. The U.S. insisted, however, on a four-year donation schedule starting in FY 1976. In part, this U.S. decision was due to a desire to prevent overlapping between IDA IV and the final installment of IDA III, due in. FY 1975. For IDA IV, the other donor countries completed their contributions on schedule in FY 1977.
During the first two years of IDA IV, FY 1976-77, Congress met the U.S. commitment, but on a delayed basis, as shown on the following table:
(Dollars in millions) Enacted Request
FY 1976 foreign assistance appropriation bill320 375
FY 1977 foreign assistance appropriation bill375 430
FY 1977 supplemental appropriation bill 55 55
The final two years' funding for IDA IV ran into trouble in Congress in FY 1978 when the Executive branch negotiated IDA V and asked Congress to begin the Fifth IDA Replenishment (IDA V) . the final two installments of IDA IV were due in FY 1978 and FY 1979.
The IDA V replenishment, fully authorized in 1977 (P. L. 95-118), was for the first time formally made subject to subsequent appropriations action. The U.S. share of the $7.3 billion total replenishment was 31 percent, or $2.4 billion. The payments were spread over three years, for an annual request of $800 million. The other donor nations, led by the West Germans, structured the IDA V agreement so that if the U.S. failed to pay its share in any year, the agreement would lapse. For this reason, the Carter Administration has concentrated on security funds for IDA V at the expense of the remaining installments of IDA IV. Every other donor has completed payment on IDA IV.
During the FY 1978 appropriations process, the Administration requested $1,175 million ($375 million, IDA IV and $800 million. IDA V), but received only $800 million for IDA V. The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported a foreign aid bill which included $950 million for IDA (150 million IDA IV and $800 million IDA V). On the Senate floor, a threat by Senators Allen and Harry Byrd to offer and debate at length 39 amendments to the Foreign Assistance Appropriation Bill resulted in an agreement to cut the development banks. The two Senators mentioned above, the Committee, and the leadership agreed to amend and lower the amounts for most of the development banks. For IDA, the decision was made to eliminate the remaining $150 million for IDA IV in the Committee bill. This is the Senate decision Senator Harry Byrd referred to on the floor today.
The floor manager did not strongly resist the elimination of IDA IV from the FY 1978 bill because he hoped to encourage the World Bank into accomplishing management reforms and savings. The Inouye Subcommittee has held hearings this session on the $875 million due to IDA IV in FY 1978 and the final 75 million due this year. Both are part of the President's total FY 1979 request for IDA, which also included the second $800 million for IDA V. If the Subcommittee is satisfied with World Bank management reforms and savings, all of IDA V and at least part of IDA IV is likely to be reported by the Committee in the FY 1979 appropriations bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. In addition, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the Treasury Department's justification for the fiscal year 1979 appropriations, which includes a table outlining in detail the commitments to which we are a party.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION JUSTIFICATION FOR FY 1979 APPROPRIATIONS
The International Development Association (IDA) is the concessional lending affiliate of the World Bank Group. It was established largely at the initiative of the United States in 1960 to finance high priority economic development projects in the less developed IBRD member countries, since the normal IBRD lending terms, at near-market interest rates are not appropriate to these countries. It does this by providing long term credits at a nominal service charge. As of September 30, 1977 IDA had 118 member countries and had made cumulative credit commitments of $11,372 million of which $7,771 million had been disbursed.
U.S. membership in the International Development Association and an original subscription of $320 million were authorized in June 1960 (PL 86-565). The United States joined the Association in August 1960. The amount of the original subscription was appropriated and contributed in five annual installments (PL 86-651, PL 87-329, PL 87-872, PL 88-258, and PL 88-634) .
Agreements have been reached by developed member countries to replenish the resources of IDA on five subsequent occasions. The United States has participated in all of the replenishments.
The fourth replenishment negotiations for an increase In IDA resources of $4.5 billion were completed in 1973. The United States share of the increase was $1.5 billion, or 33% of the total, payable in four equal annual installments of $375 million. The first $375 million installment was requested in FY 1976, of which $320 million was appropriated(PL 94-330). In FY 77, $430 million was requested, of which $375 million was appropriated in the Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act for FY 1977 (PL 94-441) , and $55 million was appropriated in a Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1977 (PL 95-26). In FY 78, $375 million was requested as the third U.S. contribution to IDA IV, but none was appropriated by the Congress. All commitment authority available under IDA IV was to be exhausted by June 30. 1977.
International negotiations for a fifth replenishment of IDA resources were completed in the spring of 1977. The replenishment size agreed to was $7.6 billion, of which the US. share was $2.4 billion or 31.4 percent of the total — the lowest U.S. share yet for an IDA resource mobilization. The U.S. received authorizing legislation (PL 95-118) in 1977 for its share of the IDA V replenishment. The Congress appropriated $800 million as the first tranche of the U.S. contribution to IDA V in the FY 1978 Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act (PL 95-148).
In FY 1979 the U.S. is requesting $1,550 million for IDA — consisting of $750 million for the third and fourth (and final) contributions to IDA IV and $800 million as the second of three equal annual installments to IDA V. Full appropriation is required of the IDA IV funds to complete the U.S. contribution to that replenishment and of the IDA V funds to trigger the availability of $1.7 billion in funds from other donor countries.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will close, Mr. President, by referring to a speech made last week, in Vancouver at the annual meeting of the Board of Governors of the Inter-American Development Bank. This is a speech by Horst Moltrecht, temporary alternate governor for the Federal Republic of Germany and Under Secretary of the Ministry of Economic Cooperation, at the Second Plenary Session.
Mr. Moltrecht, on page 2 of his statement, has this to say about the failure of other governments to meet their commitments to these international financial institutions :
... despite the Bank's sound financial structure and its commendable lending policy, there are, in some areas, signs of developments which give rise to some concern. Already at the IDB's last Annual Meeting in Guatemala City, we expressed certain misgivings that agreed replenishment commitments were not implemented, commitments made in parallel to those of the non-regional countries. Interim solutions should not be allowed to obscure the need for an early and complete settlement of the questions on hand. It is, in my opinion, urgent for all member countries to meet their obligations to the Bank at the appointed time. Otherwise, we might be faced with situations in which the Bank becomes unable to continue its operations. Also from the point of view of Parliaments in member countries, it is indispensable that all members take part on an equal footing and with equal obligations in accordance with certain principles. This applies not only to the IDB, but to all multilateral finance institutions. On the eve of new demands for replenishment, it is extremely difficult for the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to explain to its Parliament the present situation which is marked by a lack of funds at the soft loan windows of the multilateral finance institutions due to failing contributions of one major donor country.
That one major donor country which has failed to meet its commitment made on a partnership basis with these other countries is the United States of America.
What the West German delegate is saying to us is that if we do not continue to meet the commitments that our leadership role has brought to us and other countries, that failure may well signal the destruction of these international financial institutions and the purpose which they were created to meet. It is a serious matter. It is not a popular matter at the grass roots level in this country, and not an easy case to make. But a responsible country, Mr. President, must recognize this kind of responsibility, and it is for that reason that I urge the rejection of the amendment of the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Larry Howell of Senator STEVENS' staff have the privilege of the floor during the further debate on the budget resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I can understand and readily sympathize with the position taken by the distinguished Senator from Virginia. Foreign aid, so-called, is not particularly popular in my own State. In fact, I think most candidates who have run for office, when given the opportunity, have taken positions against foreign aid.
I would also agree with the Senator from Virginia that we ought to, and I think we should and will, provide for additional oversight of these various multilateral institutions. I think it is wrong for us not to require that they report to Congress in a regular manner, so that we can—
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Will the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. BELLMON. I am happy to yield.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I am sure the Senator is aware that the President of the World Bank has refused to appear before any committee of Congress.
Mr. BELLMON. I am aware of that, but I am sure if we require it as a condition of getting the money, they would be willing to appear.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Exactly. The Senator is exactly right. Will the Senator from Oklahoma join me in putting in an amendment to that effect?
Mr. BELLMON. I will be glad to join the Senator in an amendment requiring that they submit regular reports to Congress of what they are doing with the money, so that we will be in a better position to know where we are than we are now. I will be glad to work with the Senator from Virginia on that.
Our Budget Committee figures cut down the funding for the bilateral foreign aid accounts, down from the 20 percent growth requested by the President and the authorizing committees for fiscal year 1979 to 5 percent. We did not give them anything like all they asked for.
We did not give them anything like they asked for.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Will the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. BELLMON. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. As I understand, in this concurrent resolution we cannot do that. It is by function, not by line item.
Mr. BELLMON. We took this into account. We do not line item.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD. JR. So there is no reduction insofar as function is concerned.
Mr. BELLMON. But in reaching the total for the function, we took into account that we are providing not a 20-percent growth as the President recommended, but a 5-percent growth. That is the way we reached the program total.
Also, the programs that Senator BYRD's amendment would impact involve, as the chairman has said, international lending institutions which provide funds for the median-income nations, where we are developing a very considerable market for our exports. We certainly need, in light of the huge costs of imported crude oil, to export wherever we can and to earn as much foreign exchange as possible. These countries already account for about one-fifth of our exports and that figure is going up rapidly. They are our fastest growing market for exports, and if we are not careful we could hurt those markets and in fact inflict great damage on ourselves.
So while I have not been always the greatest supporter of foreign aid, I do feel the figure that the Budget Committee has developed here is realistic. I will support that figure and oppose the amendment of the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. The Senator from Maine read a letter, about which I am not exactly clear.
Mr. MUSKIE. There are two letters in the record. One is from Secretary Blumenthal.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. This one was from a foreign source.
Mr. MUSKIE. That was not a letter. It was a speech.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Who made the speech?
Mr. MUSKIE. I will give the name again. This document in my hand includes speeches made at .the annual meeting of the Board of Governors of the Inter-American Development Bank in Vancouver, in April of this year. This particular speech, which was given on the 2d or 3d of May, was made by Mr. Horst Moltrecht, temporary alternate Governor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Economic Cooperation. We are represented on the Board of Governors as well.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Would the Senator state for the record how much West Germany has put up?
Mr. MUSKIE. We would have to dig for the number. West Germany has fully subscribed. I will have the number for the Senator as soon as I can get it.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. In that connection, and this might save time, the Senator from Maine mentioned those countries which are supplying funds to IDA. If we could have a list of those countries and how much each country is putting up, I think it would help us in our deliberations.
Mr. HUDDLESTON assumed the chair).
Mr. MUSKIE. The document I have here is the annual report of the Inter-American Development Bank. I will respond to the Senator's question with respect to shares in that bank.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I was really more concerned with IDA.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will give the other, too. Incidentally, we do have a report from the World Bank.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD. JR. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. With respect to the Inter-American Development Bank, this was the first year that European countries contributed. On page 112 of the report is a statement of subscriptions to capital stock. With respect to the United States, the figure is $399 million, and with respect to Germany it is $63 million, for 1977.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. What is the total subscription?
Mr. MUSKIE. The previous year, 1976.Germany's portion was $63 million and the United States was $399 million.
The total subscription in 1977 was $1,162 million.
There are, in all. 18 contributing countries to the Inter-American Development-Bank. Venezuela, for example, in 1977, contributed $192 million. That is the next largest. Canada, $130 million.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. What was the United States?
Mr. MUSKIE:. $399 million. Venezuela was $192 million; Canada, $130 million; France, $61 million; Germany, $63 million; Italy, $61 million; Japan, $68 million; Spain, $61 million; United Kingdom, $61 million, and there are others in smaller amounts.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Wait just a minute. I will go back to my original thought. The United States, as I understand it, in that speech was berated at the conference by the representative of West Germany.
Mr. MUSKIE. Was what?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Was berated.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thought his remarks were very modest. What he was saying was, "Look, the rest of us have made our full commitments. What we are saying is if you do not meet your full commitments, it is hard for us to go back to our parliaments to get contributions." That is a statement of fact: I do not think that is berating the United States any more than the Senator from Virginia is berating them for expecting us to meet our commitment.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I will withdraw the word "berated." I will say the representative of West Germany was somewhat critical. Would that be a good word?
Mr. MUSKIE. I thought he was stating a fact. Maybe I added emphasis, because I tend to be a provocative speaker sometimes, which he did not intend. But if the Senator will read his words, and they are in the RECORD, I think it is a moderate recognition of the fact. It is almost like not wanting to recognize a sin when you see it. It is a very moderate recognition of the fact that we have not made our commitment and that his and other countries have.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Let us put it this way: He was less than enthusiastic.
Mr. MUSKIE. Just as I am less than enthusiastic about the Senator's amendment, but I am not berating the Senator. There are times when the Senator may think I am berating him, but I do not think I have been on this one.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I will be glad to withdraw the word "berated."
In any case, the statement was made by a representative of a country which put up approximately 5 percent and the United States is being called upon to put up more than 30 percent.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me point out to the Senator that is the Inter-American Bank, which is in our hemisphere. That is the first time European countries have contributed to this bank in our hemisphere. It was the first time they were allowed to contribute. Rather than being critical of their contribution, it seems to me we ought to recognize that they made a positive contribution. I think it is a pretty good start in a new partnership.
(Mr. MELCHER assumed the chair.)
Mr. MUSKIE. With respect to the World Bank, it is a much larger list of countries, may I say. I have a list of the amounts paid in as of the end of the Bank's fiscal year, on June 30, 1977.
There are two pages of countries listed, as the Senator can see.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. If we could have first the total.
Mr. MUSKIE. The total amounts paid in in 1977: $3,086,925,000.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. And how much of that did the United States pay?
Mr. MUSKIE. The United States paid $780,869,000; Federal Republic of Germany, $164,703,000.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. That $780 million the United States put up is the total amount the United States was, presumably, obligated to put up?
Mr. MUSKIE. The total amount, including guarantees, of the American subscription is $6,473,000,000.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. That is what the United States has already put up?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, this is the total subscription of the United States up to June 30, 1977. That is $6,473,000,000.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. And what country has put up the next largest item?
Mr. MUSKIE. With respect to subscriptions?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I think the Senator was giving me the total of everything, was he not?
Mr. MUSKIE. We have shifted from what was paid in in 1977 to the total subscription, including callable capital or guarantees. Does the Senator want to go back to the first?
That first total, money actually paid in, was $3 billion by the end of fiscal year 1977.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Of which the United States paid $780 million?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. If we want to look at the total subscription, that is $25,581,000,000, of which the United States subscribed $6,473,000.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Which is 25 percent of the total?
Mr. MUSKIE. Twenty-five percent, which is about the figure I used earlier.
With respect to the next largest, right above, the United Kingdom is $2.6 billion. This is on total subscription. The German Republic is $1.365 billion. France is $1.279 billion. Japan is $1.23 billion.
I ask unanimous consent that the full table be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. There are all the numbers. I do not undertake to read them all.
(Mr. BUMPERS assumed the chair.)
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Can we get to the question of IDA, which is separate?
Mr. MUSKIE. The International Development Association is the next item of discussion?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. The total subscription as of June 30, 1977, is $10,361 million. I shall not add the other numbers.
The U.S. contribution is $3,999 million; the next largest is United Kingdom, $1,209 million. The third largest is the Federal Republic of Germany, $1,095 million.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. The figures show, then, that the United States has put up 40 percent of the International Development Association money.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think the recent trend has been down toward 25 percent for IDA.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. It is 31 percent, is it not?
Mr. MUSKIE. In IDA 5, it was 31 percent. We are trying to get it down beyond the 31 percent.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I am trying to help us get down to 25 percent.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand, but the amendment means undermining our past commitments. It ought to be a multilateral effort and not unilateral.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I want to get on the question of commitments in a moment, but I want to stick with the figures here.
Mr. MUSKIE. I want to be sure the figures I am using are consistent with the understanding of Senator INOUYE. who is chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee.
Mr. INOUYE. Our first contribution was made in the year 1961. At that time, our contribution was 43 percent of the total. Since then, it has been coming down. Presently, the 5th replenishment is 31 percent. In the resolution we passed recently, the sense of the Senate, we are hoping that we shall come down further to 25 percent, the trend being such that I think we shall be arriving at 25 percent shortly.
Mr. MELCHER. Will the Senator yield me 5 minutes?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I yield to the Senator from Montana such time as he needs.
Mr. MELCHER. I thank the Senator.
First of all, I commend the Budget Committee for the action they have taken in the International Monetary Fund concerning the Witteveen facility of that fund, to expose the $1.8 billion contribution by the United States to that particular function in the International Monetary Fund. I think it is a responsible action on the part of the Budget Committee to make that an item in the budget and to make it subject to the appropriation process. Congress in this way can approve or disapprove the appropriation knowing what the money will be used for.
In the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia (Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR.,) , dealing with function 150, including the International Monetary Fund. I should like to make a case in point regarding one of the loans that was recently approved. That is for Zambia.
Zambia, whose principal export is copper, operates mines that are government-owned. Despite the fact that the world price for copper is very low, hovering around 60 cents per pound, and despite the fact that, at that price, with a glutted market throughout the world. restraint in production is in order to bring supply back into balance with demand — the loan was made of continued all out copper production. I point out that these are government-owned mines — they have been operating, I have been told, at full blast, full production. In our country, the copper companies — Anaconda. Kennecott, and others — have been forced, because of economic conditions, to reduce production.
Copper mined in Montana in the Berkley Pit at Butte has to be sold at a price somewhere around 72 to 74 cents a pound to cover the cost.
So in our State and other States that mine copper, we have been experiencing layoffs, reduction of jobs, cutbacks, and they are hard to take.
Because copper is imported into the United States and because of our basic law dealing with an industry that is suffering from imports, there is some relief for the laid-off copper workers, but it costs us. It costs money out of the Treasury. But it is the arrangement we have in our country dealing with independent companies, private companies, producing a basic metal, to try to restrain production until that point when supply equals demand, and when copper production can be put on a basis that makes economic sense.
But Zambia, the principal export. I repeat, being copper, has continued the production, I am advised, at the same level, has not cut back, has further aggravated the supply. Therefore, the economic conditions are such that they are digging themselves deeper into the hole.
It was so bad that, in order to protect the country of Zambia at all, the International Monetary Fund agreed just recently to a $340 million loan.
Where do we come in? The United States contributes about one-third of the money loaned through the International Monetary Fund. So we have contributed to a loan to save Zambia from their severe economic distress, but there is no restraint on adding to that distress by their action in continuing to produce copper at near capacity.
It does not make any sense here in the United States or other countries with private copper companies. In fact, we have responded. Our copper companies have restricted production and cut back on jobs. That is what hurts.
The floor managers of the resolution have both stressed the commitments we have made to these international lending organizations, including the International Monetary Fund.
I do not know at what point Congress was advised that there may be a commitment to Zambia through the International Monetary Fund to provide economic stabilization for that country to continue its copper mining. I suppose. in fairness, at some point we did make such a broad commitment that allows the loan. The International Monetary Fund.
But I make this case in point because I believe it is essential that we carry into these lending organizations some horse sense so their actions do not come back to haunt us in one of our industries, in the United States, because by the further production of copper when no one needs it, with an already depressed price of around 60 cents a pound, all it means is a continuation of developing of a commodity that no one can use and we continue to suffer as well as other countries that produce copper.
I particularly stress again that there is a contrast between the Government-owned copper mines in Zambia and the privately owned copper mining companies here in the United States.
Surely, if the private sector can exercise restraint, why can we not insist on such a loan made by the International Monetary Fund that that country receiving that aid will exercise some restraint to arrive at a balance of supply and demand for this basic metal?
With that case in point in mind, I believe the Senator from Virginia has offered a very worthwhile amendment, because if we serve notice by adopting this amendment perhaps we will send notice to the International Monetary Fund, and the other international lending institutions that we participate in, that the loans they make reflect common sense regarding the situation that exists in the world, the world economy as well as the economy here in the United States.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. The able Senator from Montana made exactly the appropriate point, and the point that concerns me so much. Once the Congress makes the appropriation to these multinational banks, the Congress loses all control. We have no further control over the use of that money, just as the Senator from Montana pointed out.
I think that is a very serious problem which the Congress needs to address itself to. Hopefully, as the Senator from Montana indicated, this might be beneficial in that regard.
I thank the Senator from Montana.
Mr. MELCHER. I thank the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Will the Senator from Virginia yield to me to add a comment?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I yield to the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, there are copper mines in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. At the present time, there is widespread unemployment in that part of my State due in large part to the fact that our copper mines are in serious trouble.
The Senator from Montana has made a very important point, and I wish to associate myself with his remarks.
It is one thing for our workers in this country to compete on a fair basis with workers in other countries who produce the same product. However, it is difficult to explain to our workers why their tax dollars should be used to subsidize or in other ways to provide an unfair advantage for competing workers in other countries. Too often, and in too many ways; our Government uses the tax dollars of our own workers in ways that destroy the jobs of those workers here in our country.
It seems to me that our State Department, the AID agency and others involved in implementing international policy have not been nearly attentive to, or concerned enough about, the impact of their policies and programs overseas upon our workers in this country.
So I share the concern of the distinguished Senator from Montana, particularly with respect to the copper miners, and I commend the Senator from Virginia for focusing the Senate's attention on the general problem.
Some people who live in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, which is divided from the Lower Peninsula by the Straits of Mackinaw have threatened from time to time to secede and leave the Union. Such talk usually brings a laugh, but some of the people in the Upper Peninsula who talk that way are not joking. They are serious — as a foreign country they would be able to ask for foreign assistance.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I thank the Senator from Michigan.
In regard to IDA, it has been established that of the total funds paid into the soft loan window of the World Bank; namely, the International Development Association — 40 percent has come from the American taxpayers.
I ask the manager of the bill just where those funds have gone. What countries have received the bulk of those huge funds that have been paid into the 'International Development Association?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator really gives me too much credit. For how many years does the Senator expect me to have that information at my fingertips? I really am not a walking encyclopedia in these matters. We can be here for the next 2 weeks.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I think we will find that between 50 and 60 percent has gone to two countries — mostly to India, then to Pakistan. But I want to refresh the Senator's memory. I think it is important to know what is being done with these funds.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand, but if our knowledge is limited to that which I have accumulated in my memory bank, we are in sad shape. I am not an expert in this field. I have not served on the committees with jurisdiction. I do not have that kind of information at my fingertips. I will be glad to check for you.
I will yield to my good friend from Hawaii, who has had more exposure to this area than I have.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Fine.
Mr. INOUYE. The major beneficiary of IDA, because of the size of its population.is India. Last year, they received about 40 percent of the IDA funds.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Last year, India received about 40 percent of the IDA funds?
Mr. INOUYE. Yes.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. It is correct, as I recollect, that India had adequate funds to develop a nuclear device. That being the case, I am wondering whether we are justified in taking tax dollars out of the pockets of the working people and turning that money over to the Government of India.
Mr. INOUYE. If I may be permitted to speak for about 5 minutes, I think I can give the Senator my reasons why I support foreign aid.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I believethis debate points out that the most unpopular program we have before us is foreign assistance. I think it is less popular than welfare. There is no constituency in the United States, and there are no votes to be gained when you support foreign assistance.
However, Mr. President, what we are concerned about this afternoon is the national interests of the United States and national security. We oftentimes equate national security with guns, the number of carriers we have, the number of tanks, the number of troops. But there are other ways of determining national interests and the well-being of the people of the United States.
I am trying to suggest that whatever happens in India will affect us. People starving in Bangladesh will come back to haunt us.
Today, according to IDA figures, about 70 percent of the people of the world are in the have-not category and about 30 percent are in the have category. The have-not category are those people living in countries with less than $300 per capita gross national product. Three hundred dollars. We have a per capita gross national product of about $7,000.
If we fail to listen to the pleas of the people of India, of Pakistan, of Bangladesh, of Somalia, of Zaire, and such places, our failure to advance some of the most important aspects of democracy will come back to haunt us.
The success and well-being of our democracy depends upon two factors: One: viable trading partners. It is in our interest to maintain viable trading partners and to develop new trading partners. We have the products of Detroit which we have to sell. We have Chicago: they produce and we have to sell. Hawaii has sugar; it has to be sold. Our economy depends upon selling and trading.
Second, our security is best maintained when there is stability in the world. You cannot stop the frustration, you cannot stop the dissension, and you cannot stop the fears of people with bullets.
In a country such as Mali, with a per capita gross national income of $80, in Western Samoa, $300 — these are the have-nots of the world. These are the people who benefit most from IDA
If by chance the United States should decide by this motion this afternoon to get out of the multilateral program, to get out of the banking business, to leave it up to these little countries to take care of themselves, this ratio I just mentioned of 70 percent have-nots and 30 percent haves will become 80 percent have-nots and 20 percent haves, eroding to 10 percent haves and 90 percent have-nots. We will then have an eruption — an eruption that atomic bombs will not stop.
The Subcommittee on Foreign Operations has jurisdiction over a budget having outlays of less than $5.6 billion. This includes security supporting assistance. with a large amount of that going to Egypt, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. That is a big chunk.
We are spending a relatively small amount to help to develop farms, establish population planning programs, set up schools, train teachers, train farmers. It is a small investment to keep the ratio between have and have-not nations to a point where we may have relative stability.
I hope that some day the have-nots of this world, according to this $300 figure, will be no more than 50 percent, not the 70 percent we have today, because the current ratio is dangerous.
I hope the Members of the Senate will consider security in terms other than guns, in terms other than atomic weapons, because the true security of our democracy will depend upon stability in the world and the existence, maintenance, and development of viable trading partners. That is what this type of program endeavors to do.
And, therefore, I hope that the amendment is defeated.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President. the Senator from Hawaii made an excellent speech, with the exception of that last sentence, and I wish to agree with it. If he means by his speech, and I think he does to an extent, that the appropriation of more and more funds will accomplish the purpose, with this I disagree. The facts show some $200 billion in foreign aid to 100 different countries have been expended in the past 30 years.
But to get back to the question I asked. I wonder if anyone could enlighten us as to where these funds go. We know that 40 percent has gone to India. I am just wondering to what countries the remainder of these funds are going.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think I located the table.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Fine.
Mr. MUSKIE. This table is on pages 148 and 149 of the World Bank annual report for 1977.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that table be printed in the RECORD so that Senators may know from what source I am responding to the Senator's question.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, India's percent of the total at the end of that fiscal year was 41.2 percent. This is the percent of total effective and non-effective development credits. That is percent of the total cumulative credits.
The next largest appears to be Pakistan with 6.76 percent, next Bangladesh with 6.74 percent, and next appears to be Indonesia with 4.89 percent.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. That will be satisfactory.
Mr. MUSKIE. And the rest are 2 percent or under.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I thank the Senator.
One statement the Senator from Hawaii made was that if this amendment is adopted it will get us out of the business of helping finance international financial institutions. Of course, this will not do that. This would reduce the proposed contribution by only $750 million. There would still be vast sums in the resolution which would increase over the past year the contributions by $1.2 billion, or 64 percent. That is what this new program proposes.
All I suggest is that that increase be reduced slightly.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I yield to my good friend from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. It is true that passage of this amendment will not kill our commitment or kill our involvement, but it will send a chilling message to the remainder of the world, especially the developed countries. That the most powerful and the wealthiest nation in the world would take this step, would, I think, cause others to march in step with us and then, Mr. President, the hopes for international economic development and cooperation would fade.
I also wish to point out that this program we are speaking of, the total foreign assistance program: Food, Public Law 480, teaching farmers how to plant grain, and so forth, amounts to less than 1 percent of the Federal outlay — less than 1 percent — and for that investment we are able to maintain and develop viable trading partners and we are able, Mr. President, somehow to maintain the shaky stability that we find in this world.
I would hate to see an eruption in India, because I am certain that we are all aware that if something happens there we will somehow be sucked in. If something happens in Bangladesh we will be sucked in. If something happens in Africa we will be sucked in. Why not prevent that explosion from coming about?
Mr. President, the investment we are making to world stability and the development of markets, less than 1 percent of our outlays, is very inexpensive.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Hawaii for his contribution to this debate. I feel somewhat at a loss at not being on top of the details as his experience has made possible for him. But I have here two pages that indicate the trend of burden sharing. One table lists all western and all foreign aid donors. In 1964 the U.S. share was 60.3 percent; in 1968 it had dropped to 51.3 percent; in 1972, 39 percent; and in 1976to 31.7 percent.
Part of the reason why that trend has been downward is because we have been able to encourage other donors to become involved in these international financial institutions. We have gotten them involved by making a commitment to carry our share of the burden if they carry theirs. That is an important commitment.
Let me share with the Senate the trend with respect to these international financial institutions. The original U.S. share in the World Bank was 31.7 percent. It is now 18.7 percent. The International Development Association, originally 43 percent; now down to 31.4 percent. The International Financial Corporation originally 35 percent; now 23 percent. The Inter-American Development Bank hard loan program originally 41 percent; now 32.3 percent. The Inter-American Bank soft loan program originally 68 percent; now 53.4 percent. The Asian Development Bank originally 20 percent; now 16.3 percent. And the Asian Development Fund originally 29 percent; now 22.2 percent.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this full explanatory statement issued by the Treasury Department as of February of this year be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the explanatory statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
HISTORY OF BURDEN -SHARING
The U.S. has made a major effort in the postwar period to promote LDC development as an international effort. This effort required a prominent U. S: presence, and the U.S. did play a dominant role in development assistance into the late sixties. 1969 was the first year in which the U.S. no longer provided at least half of total official development assistance (ODA) flows from DAC countries. It was also the first year in which U.S. performance in terms of proportion of GNP fell below the DAC average.
United States share of DAC official development assistance
Percent
1964 60.3
1968 51.3
1972 39.0
1976 31.7
The multilateral aid institutions evolved as a logical and effective mechanism for cooperating in this international effort. The initial U.S. share in these institutions tended to be large, both because the U.S. was usually their promoter and due to our strong position in the international economy. Nevertheless, their establishment did represent a step toward greater burden-sharing since the proportion of total bilateral aid provided by the U.S. was generally larger than the proportions of the total multilateral aid provided by the U.S.
Because the U.S. has encouraged other developed countries to increase their IFI contributions, U.S. shares in the latest replenishment of the IFIs are considerably below our original share. With the exception of the IDB — where the U.S. was for years the only major donor — the IDA is the only institution in which the U.S. has not fallen below 25 percent. Even here, however, there has been a substantial drop — from 43 percent to 31 percent.
Overall aid burden-sharing is sometimes discussed in terms of aid as a percent of GNP or in terms of GNP as a percentage of total GNP for the industrial countries as a whole. In these terms, only Japan currently lags behind the U.S. among major donors. The U.S. accounted for 41 percent of the GNP of DAC members in 1976, but only 32 percent of total ODA. Thus, multilateral assistance has advantages from the burden-sharing viewpoint in that the U.S. share is much less than might be implied by aid as a percentage of GNP or the U.S. weight in the International economy.
In practice, burden-sharing in the multilateral area is of significance in terms of real resources largely for the soft loan windows. The burden-sharing concept has little relevance to the ordinary capital operations of the IFIs. which are largely financed by private capital through IFI bond placements at market rates. For example, U.S. paid-in contributions to the IBRD have financed only two percent of IBRD lending to date. From the financial viewpoint, accordingly, the IBRD and the hard loan windows of the regional banks might more appropriately be considered financial intermediaries.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, one other bit of information for the record. This is the fiscal year 1978 foreign assistance appropriation bill (Public Law 95-148), adopted October 31, 1977. It includes a sense of the Senate resolution regarding the U.S. share of contributions to future replenishments of the international financial institutions.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Is that proposal that the U.S. share be reduced to 25 percent?
Mr. MUSKIE. Exactly.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. And this does not accomplish that purpose?
Mr. MUSKIE. It depends upon what the Senator calls "accomplish." I mean our commitments were made on the basis of a different concept of sharing. That is why I quoted the earlier figures. It has been our efforts since — what is that first year?
Mr. INOUYE. 1961.
Mr. MUSKIE (continuing). 1961, to move in that direction, and we have successfully moved in that direction.
Mr. INOUYE. Forty-three percent in 1961.
Mr. MUSKIE. And this sense of the Senate resolution sets out the target.
We are moving toward that target. We are not there yet, no, but we are moving clearly, and I think inevitably toward that target. The U.S. share of IDA VI will be 25 percent. That will be before the Senate in a year of two.
The Senator wants to achieve it today at the expense of commitments we have made to other countries..
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD that portion of Public Law 95–148 to which I have made reference.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
FUTURE UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
It is the sense of the Senate that the United States share of contributions to future replenishments of the International Financial Institutions should not exceed the percentages enumerated below for each of the respective accounts within these institutions:
Asian Development Bank:
Paid-in capital, 16.3 percent;
Callable capital, 16.3 percent;
Asian Development Fund, 22.2 percent;
African Development Bank: Special Fund, 10.6 percent;
Inter-American Development Bank: Paid-in ordinary capital, 34.5 percent; Callable ordinary capital. 34.5 percent; Paid-in interregional capital, 34.5 percent; Callable interregional capital, 34.5 percent; Fund for Special Operations, 40 percent; International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development:
Paid-in capital, 18.7 percent;
Callable capital, 18.7 percent;
International Development Association, 25 percent;
International Finance Corporation, 23 percent.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, beforethe Senator yields back his time, could I have a couple of minutes?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 2 minutes.
Mr. BELLMON. The Senator from Hawaii is on the floor, and I wonder if I could ask him to respond to a question.
I think the Senator from Hawaii would agree that one of the problems with the foreign aid programs. is that sometimes they are not well understood, and there is also a considerable amount of concernas to just where this money goes.
The Senator from Hawaii as well as the Senator from Oklahoma are both on the Appropriations Committee. I wonder if we could join in some kind of language in our appropriation bill to be sure we get more adequate reporting from these financial institutions as to just where this money goes and what happens with these funds.
Mr. INOUYE. I would be happy to join with the Senator.
Mr. BELLMON. It seems to me we might be able to answer some of the very just criticisms the Senator from Virginia has raised if we had better information as to what is being done with this money.
I would hope we could, when we come back a year from now, have more information as to what is being accomplished with these funds.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if the Senator from Oklahoma will yield, as my distinguished friend is aware the Foreign Operations Subcommittee has been in the lead in trying to bring about management reform in international financial institutions. We have been the biggest critics. As the Senator knows, we reduced the salary of our representative on the board. But I do not want those criticisms to leave the impression that we were against the effort and the work of the international financial institutions. I think they are doing a good job. As long as they continue to have management reform, we should support their efforts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PROXMIRE). Is all time yielded back? All time being yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Virginia. The yeas al nays have been ordered and the clerk w call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced—yeas 37, nays 53, as follows: