FYI
IMF funding, though unique in several ways, has shared the same experience as a number of other foreign policy issues brought before the U.S. Congress. It was affected by trends that have been evolving over recent years.
First, the consideration of almost all foreign policy issues in the Congress has become increasingly diffused. The sense of urgency and international tension produced by the Cold War has diminished, and time and effort spent on resolving domestic, rather than foreign policy, problems is seen as more rewarding. The foreign affairs authorizing committees have continued to lose stature and influence. Old coalitions of internationalists have broken up, and leadership on foreign affairs issues, whether for or against, is not coming from the traditional sources. In the case of the IMF, a wide range of committees became involved—the Banking Committees, the House International Relations and Senate Foreign Relations Committees, the Agriculture Committees, the Appropriations Committees, the Budget Committees, the Joint Economic Committee, and even the House Rules Committee. In the end, the elected leadership in both chambers played a decisive role.
A second development is that the political parties have become increasingly divided on foreign policy. In the debate over the IMF, the distance between the Milton Friedman free-market Republicans and the business-oriented internationalist Republicans was as wide as the gap between Republicans and Democrats. Party fragmentation, although not always along the same fault lines, can be seen on such issues as China, fast-track trade authority, United Nations funding, and the foreign affairs budget.
In addition to party fragmentation, and actually intensifying it, are the effects of redistricting and low voter turnout, which have given greater voice to single-issue proponents. Redistricting in the states along party lines has meant that the chief political threat to many House members comes from within the party, making special issues—such as abortion on the Republican side and labor standards on the Democratic side—dominating concerns. Low voter turnout—only 37 percent in the 1998 elections, the lowest since 1942—exacerbates the trend.
Divided government—with the Democrats controlling the executive branch and Republicans in the majority in both the House and the Senate—complicates the picture still further. The U.S. Treasury Department took the lead in arguing the IMF's case on Capitol Hill, but, inevitably, resentments that spilled over from previous battles and mutual distrust, especially on the House side, affected the reception the Democratic administration received in the Republican Congress.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2000/09/locke.htm