Hearing Of The Subcommittee On International Monetary Policy And Trade Of The House Committee On Financial Services - Implications Of The G-20 Leaders Summit For Low-Income Countries And The Global Economy

Statement

Hearing Of The Subcommittee On International Monetary Policy And Trade Of The House Committee On Financial Services - Implications Of The G-20 Leaders Summit For Low-Income Countries And The Global Economy

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

REP. MEEKS: Good morning. This hearing of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade will come to order. Opening statements for the record -- and without objection, all members' opening statements will be made a part of the record.

Subcommittee chair and ranking minority members will be recognized for five minutes, all other members recognized for three minutes each, and I will start with an opening statement.

On April 2nd, 2009, the leaders of the G-20 nations gathered in London to address the global financial crisis which has gripped nearly every nation in the world. The resolution put forward by the leaders was broad and far-reaching, both in its scope as measured by the actions proposed but also in its inclusion of nations which we may have been tempted to ignore in the past.

Indeed, the very fact that the meetings in London were of the G- 20 leaders plus representatives from other key emerging economies and international financial institutions is a testament to the global nature of the crisis and the imperative of a global approach to the solution.

But the question remains as to why, when we are faced with the deepest economic and financial crisis since the Great Depression, we should allocate time, energy and resources to poor and emerging economies beyond our usual aid and humanitarian activities. I believe that beyond the altruistic reasons for assisting poor and emerging countries we have strong business, economic and geopolitical reasons to follow through on the commitments made by President Obama and the other leaders at the G-20 Summit.

Indeed, it is critical to note that when we are not present, either directly through bilateral assistance or indirectly through international financial institutions and multilateral development banks, others will step in to fill the void. To do nothing and look the other way is in fact to do something.

When we decide to walk away from our obligations under the pretext that the crisis is too severe to help others, we open the door for others to step in and fill the void we create. This is not just a theoretical threat but in fact a very real one.

Institutions like the IMF and the World Bank and many others which America supports and which were mentioned as critical to global economic recovery in the G-20 communique act as balanced mediums to provide countries in need with much-needed resources to forestall crises while moving these same countries to more stable, more sustainable and more peaceful paths to economic growth. This is something we should all support.

We have called this hearing to follow up on the G-20 resolutions endorsed by our president, Barack Obama, which made explicit the importance of not just providing aid to those nations and communities in the most dire need but, rather, to include poor and emerging economies as full participants in any strategy to pull the global economy out of recession.

The wording of the G-20 communique made this explicit. The reasons for following through on the commitments made by President Obama and the other leaders at the G-20 Summit in London can be broadly grouped into three categories: one, supporting American industry; two, preventing further systemic risk in global capital markets and encouraging continued sound economic reforms; and three, promoting sociopolitical stability.

Addressing these issues in order, I will begin by discussing the impact on American industry. As the G-20 communique stated, emerging economies have been a true engine of global economic growth in the recent past. As we saw with the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, when the emerging economies of Asia stalled, world economic growth stalled.

When the financial crisis that struck Asian economies was resolved, the world as a whole resumed on a path of rapid economic expansion. In many ways, we face a similar crisis today on a much larger scale. As our economies have become increasingly interdependent through trade and vertical outsourcing, American producers are directly and indirectly exposed to consumers and manufacturers around the world.

Driven by their rapid economic growth, emerging middle classes and young populations eager to consume American goods and services, emerging economies have become major consumers of goods and services produced by American companies. As a result, many American companies stand to gain from our efforts to support the continued economic growth in these countries.

As was the case in the Asian financial crisis, restarting the engines of growth in emerging economies will be a critical component to restart our own economy here at home.

Looking at the second point about preventing further systemic risk in global capital markets, it is important to revisit some important changes that occurred in the past decade or so. It has been well documented that following the Asian financial crisis and the Argentina crisis earlier this decade, the IMF experienced a dramatic drop in its lending activities around the world.

This was in part due to what was seen as overly harsh conditionality on loans and stigma associated with turning to the IMF for balance of payment assistance, but this was also largely due to the availability of other sources of funding for many emerging-market governments. Indeed, as capital markets matured and expanded aggressively to the four corners of the world, companies and governments in emerging markets found themselves able to borrow from global banks, investment funds and alternative investment vehicles like never before.

This enabled many of these countries to pursue their economic development strategies while building up healthy reserves. While the debt stock of poor and emerging economies would previously have been constituted nearly entirely of IMF, World Bank and other international development institutional debt, increasingly banks and investment funds accounted for a large share of that debt. This of course included American investors and American banks.

The risk of default, primarily on sovereign debt but also by the largest companies in these emerging economies, is equally true in countries that followed what would be considered sound macroeconomic policy, building up healthy reserves and investing in the development and diversification of local industry. This is true because of the nature of the crisis they are facing.

They are dealing simultaneously with falling demand for their exports, a steep fall in the commodity prices, collapsing remittances, drastic reductions in international aid, rising domestic unemployment and returning immigrants. Even the best-prepared emergent economies cannot withstand such a confluence of negative shocks at once and risk severe balance of payment pressure.

As described, many poor countries and emerging economies have implemented sound microeconomic policies in the past decade or more. This of course has not been universally true, but evidence abounds of countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America applying more conventional, trade-driven, free markets policies. These countries have reversed long trends of nationalization of industries, choosing instead to foster entrepreneurship and competition, open their economies to international trade, and put in place the foundation of good governance. To fail these nations now by not supporting their continued efforts of reform is to risk reversing a decade or more of economic achievement.

And finally, the sociopolitical stability -- that should be on top of the mind of all nations seeking a way out of this global financial crisis. Simply put, we are at an inflection in this point in history and our decisions in the coming weeks and months will define the future path of global economic growth and broader geopolitical events.

As already explained, many poor and emerging economies face a perfect storm of external shocks which is putting a great strain on their economies both at the macroeconomic level but also at the microeconomic level. Emerging economies and fragile democracies will be severely tested by collapsing demand and prices for their exports, rising unemployment, falling remittances and unemployed migrants returning to their home countries.

If nothing is done, these other factors will inevitably push some countries to civil unrest if not outright war. It is in the interest of all peaceful nations to ensure that this be avoided. As we approach this inflection point in history and accept that to do nothing is not an acceptable option, we now consider how our actions can set emerging countries on a path to sustainable, peaceful growth, sowing the seeds of freedom and democracy in regions of the world where they have been elusive.

Trade finance and a rejection of protectionism are critical components of the G-20 resolutions, but details are lacking and present a great opportunity for us to put our imprint on the nature of this recovery and the structure of future economic relations between rich and poor nations of the world.

I end as Frederic Bastiat, a 19th-century French economist rightly said, "When goods don't cross borders, armies will."

And I yield to my good friend Mr. Miller from California.

REP. GARY G. MILLER (R-CA): Thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing today on "Implications of the G-20 Leaders Summit on Low- Income Countries and Global Economy."

As we are seeing, nations across the world are experiencing unprecedented economic challenges as a result of the financial fallout. While low-income countries are not exposed to nonperforming mortgage assets and troubled financial firms, they have been directly impacted by the overall constriction of credit and decrease in investment, employment and demand to develop as conditions in the financial circuit continue to worsen.

Many emerging economies around the globe have made significant progress in implementing financial, government and social reforms necessary to foster stable economic growth. The development of good economic policies, especially in a bleak period, require great sacrifice and trade-off as their spendings have scaled down.

The U.S. should work to ensure that these struggling nations are successful in their pursuit of progress and their stability is not threatened because of actions and errors that occurred outside of their control. It's more important than ever to ensure that these nations continue a course of sound economic policies that will allow them to move forward, building a strong middle class and thus sustainable foundation for recovery.

As we all know, terrorism respects no national border and has gravely impaired the economies of nations large and small. Poverty breeds unrest and instability that creates a type of condition that allows dictators and extremists to thrive. Worsening economic conditions throughout the globe will foster terrorism and jeopardize our safety. U.S. policy should support and encourage responsible participation in the global economy in which we live. Just as low- income countries are affected by downturns in the U.S., the U.S. is impacted by downturns in the emerging markets.

These nations represent an ever-increasing consumer base for U.S. exports. When they suffer economic strife, global demand diminishes and the U.S. jobs are affected as a consequence.

With that, I look forward to the hearing today and further to review the (subcommittees made ?) on G-20 in their April hearing. I'm looking forward to hearing the witnesses today and the input they have. And I would like to pass for unanimous consent to recognize Congressman Hensarling for a minute and a half.

REP. MEEKS: Without objection.

REP. JEB HENSARLING (R-TX): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the committee allowing me to participate.

I'm not here today to have the debate about how worthy the IMF may be, but I am here today to raise the question on whether or not today is the time that the United States should be committing an extra $100 billion of taxpayer money to the IMF. Now, that's a commitment of $861 for every American household.

This comes on top of the $6,034 to fund the $700 billion worth of bailout money last September, $9,810 to fund the $1.13 trillion government stimulus plan, $3,534 per American household to fund a $410 billion omnibus spending plan.

We are now borrowing -- borrowing -- 46 cents for every dollar that the government spends. Now, this Congress just passed a budget which will triple -- triple -- the national debt in just 10 years. Yesterday we received the news from the Medicare trustees -- no surprise here -- that Medicare is going broke sooner than we had though. It will be going flat broke in 2017, two years earlier than projected, and they tell us the unfunded liability of Medicare over a 75-year period is up an additional $1.8 trillion.

At some point I think we have to ask ourselves the question, is there any limit to the liability exposure we're willing to place on the American taxpayer? Is there any limit to the amount of debt that we are willing to place on our children and our grandchildren?

Now, I know some will argue that for CBO scoring purposes this shouldn't actually be scored. This is simply an asset transfer. We're just extending $100 billion line of credit. Well, we heard the very same argument in favor of Freddie and Fannie, and we were told there would never be any taxpayer liability there. Well, we kind of know how that story turned out.

And if press reports are credible we understand that this request may be attached to the war supplemental. I mean, how do we explain to our constituents, then, that Congress may be on the verge of committing more money to the IMF and to foreign nations than committing to our American troops in the field? That's certainly not something I care to try to explain.

And when so many of our own citizens are having trouble paying for accessing credit to refinance their homes, their interest rates are going up on their credit cards, credit cards are being withdrawn from the market and I believe certainly Congress has exacerbated that trend, how do we tell them that you can't get credit, but we're going to make you more exposed as a taxpayer to give foreign nations more credit?

I think this is an incredibly poor time to be putting an additional $100 billion of taxpayer liability exposure for an additional contribution to the IMF.

And again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence of the committee for allowing me to speak and I yield back the balance of my time.

REP. MEEKS: Ms. Moore of Wisconsin.

REP. GWEN MOORE (D-WI): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will keep my opening statement brief.

I guess I would like to build upon the comments of Mr. Hensarling by just pointing out that the collapse of these emerging economies bodes very poorly for the United States. We will not have the opportunity to export products if we allow these emerging economies to fail, and what we are trying to do, the financial collapse that we're all experiencing globally is -- it bodes for us to develop a sustainable world economy.

And so while it is penny-wise to be protectionist and to only look out for ourselves, it is pound foolish to think that we can allow the economic collapse of peoples and economies across the globe and expect that we're going to survive.

So I think that the gathering of the G-20 was very significant in that it reinforced a truth that we're all in this together.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.

REP. MILLER: Can I reclaim the balance of my time?

REP. MEEKS: Yes.

REP. MILLER: Mr. Manzullo is on his way; he got delayed by some traffic, as you all saw, in the hallway in the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Hensarling made some good points and I don't want his argument to be taken improperly. I think we have a responsibility to the American people, like Mr. Hensarling said. We do understand that when smaller countries that are developing have problems, many times terrorists breed upon that.

But I think it's incumbent upon us to look at all the aspects of what our government is involved in today, the amount of money we're spending, the amount of money that this type of a loan could benefit in the long run, too, to these emerging countries and to create stability in those sectors, and I think it's very important that we look at that.

But I think he made some valid points. I think that's perhaps something we should also address in this committee because we know the president is looking to try to do the right thing in many of these countries, but we're also in a situation where the American people are suffering and how the perception is taken by them as to where these dollars are invested is something I think we need to look at from a sincere perspective and understand there's really positive and negative of doing what we're trying to do.

And I think I could talk forever and Mr. Manzullo might not show up, so I will yield back the balance of my time. (Laughter.)

REP. MEEKS: We'll allow Mr. Manzullo when he does show up to have a few words right after we hear from our distinguished witnesses.

And, well, just before, maybe -- Mr. Maffei, do you have an opening statement?

REP. DAN MAFFEI (D-NY): I'll just agree with the chairman.

REP. MEEKS: (Laughs.) Smart man.

We have some distinguished witnesses that I'm delighted to have testify this morning.

Mr. Amar Bhattacharya, who is the director of the Intergovernmental Group of Twenty-Four on International Monetary Affairs and Development, the G-24. The G-24 was established in 1971 as a representative body of finance ministers and central bank governors of developing countries with the objective of helping to articulate and support the position of developing countries and the discussions of the IMF, World Bank, and other relevant fora.

Prior to taking up his current position, Mr. Bhattacharya had a long-standing career in the World Bank. His last position was as senior adviser and head of the International Policy and Partnership Group in the Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network of the World Bank. He was adviser to the president and senior management and focal point for the bank's engagement with key international groupings and institutions such as the G-7, G-8, G-20, IMF, OECD and the Commonwealth Secretariat.

He is an Indian national who completed his undergraduate studies at the University of Delhi and at Brandeis University and his graduate study at Princeton University.

We also have with us Ms. Nancy Birdsall. She is the founding president of the Center for Global Development. Before launching the center she served for three years as senior associate and director of the Economic Reform Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace from 1993 to 1998. She was executive vice president of the Inter-American Development Bank. Before joining the Inter-American Development Bank she spent 14 years in research policy and management positions at the World Bank. She's the author, co- author, or editor of more than a dozen books and monographs on international development issues. Ms. Birdsall holds a Ph.D. in economics from Yale University and an M.A. in international relations from John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

We have Mr. Simon Johnson -- is it Simon or "Simone"? -- Simon Johnson, who is the Ronald A. Kurtz professor of entrepreneurship at MIT's Sloan School of Management. He's also a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C., and a co-founder of the BaselineScenario.com, a widely cited website on the global economy, and a member of the Congressional Budget Office's panel of economic advisers.

Professor Johnson is an expert on financial and economic crises, and as an academic in policy roles with the private sector over the past 20 years, he has worked on severely stressed economic and financial situations around the world.

His research and policy advice focuses on how to limit the impact of negative shocks and manage the risks faced by countries. He is co- founder and current co-chair of the National Bureau of Economics Research Project on Africa and he's also a faculty director of MIT Sloan's New Moscow Initiative and a former member of the Global Advisory Board of Endeavor, which promotes entrepreneurships in Latin America and around the world.

And last but far from least, we have Mr. Timothy D. Adams, who is the managing director of the Lindsey Group. Previously, Mr. Adams served as undersecretary of Treasury for international affairs. As undersecretary, Mr. Adams was the administration's point person on international financial issues, including exchange rate policy, G-7 meetings, and IMF and World Bank issues.

He regularly interacted with counterparts in key emerging markets, including China, India and Brazil and traveled extensively throughout Asia, the Middle East and Europe. Prior to assuming his post as undersecretary, Mr. Adams had served as chief of staff to both Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Treasury Secretary John Snow. He was policy director for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign from November 2003 to the end of 2004 and also served as a full-time member of the Bush-Cheney campaign staff in Austin in 2000. In 1993, Mr. Adams co-founded the G-7 group, a Washington-based advisory firm. He later headed the Washington operations as managing director. Mr. Adams holds a B.S. in finance a master's in public administration and an M.A. in international relations from the University of Kentucky.

So we have a group of distinguished witnesses, and we'll first hear from Mr. Bhattacharya.

MR. BHATTACHARYA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a privilege to testify in front of this committee.

REP. MEEKS: Let me just say before we start that, without objection, your written statements will be made a part of the record and you will be recognized for a five-minute summary of your testimony.

MR. BHATTACHARYA: It is a particular privilege to be here, given the very, very high stakes that emerging markets in developing countries have in your deliberations.

I want to make three points based on my testimony. The first, echoing very much what has been said, is that while the developing world is in many ways an innocent bystander in this crisis they can be and must be part of the solution, the global solution.

If you look at the record right now, there's no doubt that the crisis is having a disproportionate impact on the developing world. Unemployment, for example, in the developing world is expected to increase by maybe as much as 50 million this year, and in sub-Saharan Africa, per capita income growth is expected to decline by 2.5 percent, something that we haven't seen for almost two decades.

So the crisis is really having a very, very serious impact, and assisting these countries is important for many of the reasons that you stressed. First, the fact that this time round the emerging markets are not amplifying the crisis is good news, and helping them to ensure that they can contain the crisis is good for us all.

Second, you have to remember that the developing world now constitutes three out of the four engines of global growth. So when you think about global recovery, helping these countries get back on their feet is good for the global world and it's very good for the United States, which has exported more than 50 percent of its exports to the developing world over the last three years. So it's in everybody's self-interest.

Third, the very important point, Mr. Chairman, you made about social stability and peace in particularly the fragile countries and particularly the poorest countries is good for everybody in the world.

The second point I want to make is that there is great urgency in giving effect to the decisions that were made by the G-20, especially with regard to the resources of the IMF. As no doubt Ms. Birdsall will make the point that she always has, the IMF is the world's fire brigade and we have to remember that we are in the midst of a raging fire.

Since the crisis broke out, the IMF has committed ($)147 billion for 20 countries, including three countries under the new flexible credit line. That amounts to 60 percent of the available resources of the IMF, excluding the bilateral loan from Japan. There are many more countries in active discussions with the IMF, and as we know, the downside uncertainties are very large.

So there is really great urgency to getting agreement on these arrangements to borrow. Does that mean that the IMF should be given a blank check? The answer is absolutely no in three particular respects. First, this temporary borrowing must be seen as a bridge to a more permanent increase in quotas, and that's what the G-20 committed to. Second, it must be linked with fundamental reforms in governance -- governance with regard to voice and vote, in particular a shift from Europe to the developing world, second with regard to the selection process with the heads of the institutions and, third, with regard to conditionality.

The IMF has put in place a new conditionality framework. Some will say that perhaps it's too lax. Others, like ourselves, will say perhaps it's not lax enough. But the key is that the decisions will be in the implementation, and it is important that the IMF implement it in a way that doesn't penalize the developing world and that recognizes that this crisis is exogenous.

The last point I want to make is: Important though the increase in the IMF resources are, the area where the G-20 was perhaps the least ambitious was with respect to the poorest countries.

Yes, ($)6 billion has been put on the table, but the needs of developing the poorest countries we estimate are on the order of more like 35 like 50 billion dollars. Hence, it's very important to follow through on the increase in concessional resources, not so much only for the IMF but for the concessional arms of the multilateral development banks.

At the moment, therefore, giving effect to IDA is very important, and it is simply not good enough to say we are going to front-load IDA. We have to recognize that the amount of money that IDA needs now is much greater than what we had contemplated before the crisis. And so it's on that note of raising, in fact, even more the ambition of the G-20 where I think this body could make a great deal of difference.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. MEEKS: Thank you.

Ms. Birdsall.

MS. BIRDSALL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Miller and others, for your statements. I think you have already said much that's important and said it very eloquently.

But let me repeat that today's challenges in our global village do not respect borders, and that's true for human security, it's true about food safety, it's true about climate change, and now it's most evidently true with respect to the financial crisis.

And we are complicit in the U.S. in starting a fire or at least contributing in a major way to a fire in the global village. We're the biggest player and we have a responsibility to raise the resources to deal with this raging fire, particularly as it affects the low- income countries, the poorest countries in the world and the poorest people.

We also need resources for the fire department so that it is more capable and more effective in enforcing building codes in the future and other measures that will make all the houses in the village more resilient and less exposed to the vulnerabilities that this financial crisis has demonstrated.

Let me make four points very quickly.

The first is that we need the IMF, we Americans; the second, that Congress should approve the overall package the administration has requested, including the $100 billion for the new arrangement to borrow facility. Congress should approve the sale of gold, and I'd be happy to answer questions beyond what I say orally on how that gold should be -- those resources should be allocated. And Congress should ensure that the governance reforms go ahead that Treasury is urged to push on those.

Two reasons why Americans need the IMF I think Amar Bhattacharya has also said very nicely, as have you. The first is that our own economic recovery does depend heavily on economic recovery in emerging markets and in other developing countries, and the second has to do with development more generally.

Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have said that our foreign policy relies on a three-legged stool: defense, diplomacy and development. And the IMF can and must play a critical role in ensuring that the development leg, with U.S. leadership, is not weakened further than it already is.

That has to do with insecurity, instability; it has to do with protecting the incredible progress most developing countries have made in the last decade in reforming their own governance, reducing corruption, managing their own macroeconomic matters much more effectively, and so on. So that's my first point.

The second point is that the U.S. should agree to a loan of $100 billion to the IMF. Congressman Hensingling (sic) raised the question whether this would increase risk for Americans, and the answer is essentially that it would not. This is a credit to an institution that is extraordinarily sound. It follows extraordinarily conservative policies.

This is not in my written testimony, but I'm saying it in response to his query that there is absolutely no way to compare the situation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prior to this crisis in terms of its soundness to that of the International Monetary Fund today. There is no way that the taxpayers could be said to really be taking any reasonable risk in this kind of transfer -- in effect, transfer of assets between the United States and the IMF.

In addition, I support the idea of an additional $250 billion of SDRs that are being created, as called for at the G-20 summit in London, and I urge the Congress to endorse heartily this move. I believe the administration has made the necessary notification to the Congress in order to go ahead with that part of changes at the IMF.

Third point: The Congress should endorse the sale of IMF gold for two purposes. I urge this subcommittee to push for approval of those gold sales and to provide guidance to Treasury for its discussions with other IMF members on the allocation of the sales revenue between the two purposes, the one purpose being for the endowment at the IMF that would strengthen the fire department functions and the second purpose being for additional resources for the low-income countries.

I think on the issue of additional resources for the low-income countries, the key issue is actually timing, and the Congress faces, the Senate now also faces the question of how urgently to move. My concern would be that it's important to move quickly to exercise U.S. leadership and to insist that the Treasury take steps to insist on the associated reforms that we have been talking about.

I have comments on how the concessional resources should be used by the IMF where this subcommittee may want to lend its guidance, and one of those comments has to do with, if possible, using the resources for grants to minimize future debt, and a second has to do with ensuring that the IMF uses those resources in exactly the same way, in effect for standby-type loans, as it does in the case of middle-income countries, the only difference being in the charges it charges.

And finally, the Congress should put for faster and further governance reforms at the IMF. It is in our direct national security and economic interests to make the IMF not only better resourced but a more credible and effective global financial institution. That's only possible if China and other major emerging-market economies have a much larger role in IMF decision making, are brought into the process, and become also shepherds of the global economy.

So the G-20 leaders recognized this at the summit in April, and the call for additional resources for the IMF, where the U.S. did take leadership, is twinned, and again, the U.S. has been a leader, smartly, with calls for governance reform.

You've heard a lot about the governance reform already today. You'll hear more about them. I believe that despite the shortcomings of the current reform process, it's now sensible to go ahead with the overall package, including those governance reforms, with a lot of guidance from this committee and from your committee and from the Senate to the Treasury on how insistent the U.S. should be in pushing for even faster implementation of the reforms and pushing for the next round to be less modest and more deep.

Let me conclude by saying that the IMF is far from perfect. There have been a lot of concerns from many people over the years. But in the last couple of years the IMF has made substantial progress in implementing a better approach to conditionality and beginning the reform process on the governance side.

It's going in the right direction, and at this point I think the urgency we should all face is the need for the additional resources to put at the IMF. I urge the Congress, the House and the Senate, therefore, to move quickly on the necessary legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

REP. MEEKS: Thank you.

Mr. Johnson?

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

Let me begin by emphasizing one piece of my bio I'm not sure was mentioned, which is I was the chief economist at the IMF until the end of August, and as a result, I have a particular perspective on both their view of the global economy and the issues of IMF reform.

I'm on the record as being strongly in support of the IMF on some dimensions but certainly not on all dimensions. And I'd like to break that, my agreements and disagreements, into three pieces. Let me speak briefly about the global economy and the summit, the context of this discussion, and then spend a little bit more time on the proposals that are coming before you.

So first of all, on the global economy I broadly agree with the numbers brought forward in the summary nicely by Mr. Bhattacharya. I actually think that the IMF baseline, which is regarded as being fairly negative in the context of overall global economic forecast, to my mind is a little too optimistic.

And if you read between the lines and you look at the way the report is presented, there's a lot of discussion there of downside scenarios. Believe me, these are not scaremongers at the IMF; these are very sensible, professional people. They are warning you in no uncertain terms that while the global economic situation has stabilized to some degree, there is substantial potential for things to get worse.

And I think that the chairman's opening statements about the social stability are absolutely critical in that context. That is exactly how the economy can worsen. We've seen many economic shocks, we're seeing a lot of the hits on the world's poorest people just now coming through, and we haven't yet sent the full social and political impact of that. So I think the global situation is extremely dangerous.

Secondly, and speaking directly to that, I think the G-20 summit was a remarkable success. I think in large part this was due to the efforts of the Obama administration, it was a come-from-behind win. The previous G-20 summit, which was held in Washington at the end of last year, was a severe disappointment.

And the Obama administration rightly focused on certain key issues which they felt they could win; the central, most important one, of course, or set of issues, was around the IMF. And within the IMF context, the most important issue was money -- how much money does the IMF have to lend, have available to lend, if times get tough, if the downside scenario materializes? And you need a lot. The downside scenario is very, very bad in this context.

I called back in the fall for the IMF to have $2 trillion available to lend. This was when the IMF had ($)250 billion total. And that call, I think, was regarded as somewhat exaggerated. Well, now the IMF is going to have, if the full set of funding proposals and special drawing rights allocation goes through, they'll have about $1 trillion available to lend.

I regard that as a very sensible step in the right direction, but I'm still not sure that's enough. This is a very big world with a lot of interconnected problems, and many things can still go wrong. The IMF is the fire brigade, as Nancy Birdsall has stressed repeatedly and Larry Summers is also stressing, and the fire departments are essential and you don't want to start from scratch and rebuild in the middle of a crisis, but you do want to make sure they're credible, legitimate and they have the resources they need to fight the fires. And that's the context in which I support the additional resources for the IMF.

In fact, I would go further, and if Mr. Hensarling comes back in I'd be happy to discuss that with him directly.

But at the same time, I would stress and absolutely emphasize in every context the need to continue and follow through the so-called process of IMF reform. I put a long list of items that need to be addressed in my written statement, but let me close by emphasizing three of them.

First of all, the process of selection for the next managing director of the IMF must be an open competition.

They must look for, and you should impress upon Treasury the importance of following through with this declaration of the G-20. The next managing director of the IMF cannot be a European. It has always been a European since the end of the Second World War. There is no good reason for this.

It is regarded in some quarters as having become a sinecure. That is not what you need -- (laughs) -- for the top position of the world's leading financial fire department. I think that the leaders agreed to change that and I think it's most important to make sure there's no backsliding on that whatsoever. Anything less than that I think will be regarded with derision and scorn around the world and it will further undermine the credibility and hamper the rebuilding of legitimacy of the IMF.

Second, in terms of IMF resources, there has been an unconscionable gaffe, if I may use a technical term. The IMF was forced to cut its budget a year ago. This was a process that's been long in the making and we can go back and argue about whether it was right or wrong at the time the decisions were made. But the point is it was implemented just as the global crisis was beginning to become more severe. And as the IMF itself was warning about that, the fire department was cut back. You have five fire engines and then you're told to go to three, and you're saying the forest fire is coming. And they say, no, actually, go to two and a half fire engines. That's crazy. It's irresponsible. That budget must be reversed. The IMF has plenty of cash on hand. The IMF is earning money from its loans, it's earning money from its new flexible credit facility, which has the potential also to generate revenue during stable times as well as unstable times.

The IMF staff levels must be returned at least to the level they were at at the end of 2007. You cannot reasonably and responsibly call on the IMF to do the job that the G-20 is asking to do with a reduced level of resources. It's just not serious.

Thirdly and finally, the job of exchange rate surveillance is absolutely essential. This responsibility has traditionally been with the IMF, and particularly because of issues around the undervaluation of the Chinese exchange rate over the past five to eight years, it has become more severe.

The IMF has unfortunately, for reasons we can discuss separately, if you're interested, dropped the ball on this issue. You cannot rebuild confidence in the global system, you can't persuade developing countries to cooperate fully and not to try and run big current account surpluses, accumulate loss of reserves and undervalue their currencies and take jobs away from America and generate resentment among your constituents unless and until somebody manages the exchange rate system properly.

This is how the flow of trade, the flow of goods across border breaks down, and this is how the flow of soldiers across borders starts, with this kind of mismanagement.

So the IMF reform process must be completed.

Thank you very much.

REP. MEEKS: Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Adams.

MR. ADAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Miller and the members of this committee.

For the sake of brevity and to avoid duplication, I'll be quite quick. I agree with Dr. Johnson that the global environment, the global economy remains very fragile, and as he mentioned, I think he used the phrase "extremely dangerous." I think that is an accurate description of economic conditions.

Two, let me say that I agree with the G-20 agenda that was laid out in London on April 2nd. I too applaud the president for his leadership at that summit and for helping shape the outcome of the G- 20 meeting.

I also fully endorse the sub-component of that agenda, which is directly focused on the IMF. There have been times where I've been a harsh critic of the fund, but I think even prior to this crisis, but certainly in this crisis, they should be applauded for their creativity, their imagination, and the speed with which they have jumped into the trenches to try to craft new programs and retool old programs to meet the changing nature of this crisis and to be relevant, given the nature of this crisis.

But I want to address the point that the congressman made earlier about why do we want to do this. It is a tremendous amount of money. We're spending a lot of money. We're going to the, as one of my old bosses once said, to the plumbers and carpenters of Chicago and asking them to spend more of their hard-earned money and send it to Washington. Why should we do that, and I note for a number of reasons.

One is because we need to reward good performers. We need to send signals to countries that taking the political risk of doing the right thing on policy, it will be rewarded and they should continue doing it in the future. I strongly think that incentives matter, so it's an important signaling effect to all those countries out there that have done the right thing over the past five or 10 years.

Two, it's in our national security interests, without question. If you look at some of the countries that the fund has provided additional assistance to, Pakistan -- 170 million people and a very fragile economy that appears more perilous by the day. We should do everything in our power. I know that Congress is even looking at bilateral assistance.

We should do everything in our power to help countries like Pakistan remain a stable, vibrant democracy as part of our overall national interest, and there are other countries that receive support: Colombia, which is on the front lines of fighting narcoterrorism; Mexico, which is an important partner and with which we share a border and many challenges; the Ukraine, which is a waypoint for Russian energy into Europe. Europe's energy security depends on the gas that flows across Ukraine, and I can only imagine that if there is political turmoil in Ukraine, might our friends in Moscow decide to redraw the map of Europe. A place like Tajikistan, which relies on a tremendous amount of remittances for its budget -- remittances account for 45 percent of the GDP of Tajikistan. Why is it important? Because it's a northern waypoint of terrorists, terrorist resources and those hostile to the United States to gain entry into Afghanistan where our men and woman in uniform are dying every single day, and it's also a through-point for poppy and for opium to find its way out. Most of it goes to Europe, but some of it ends up in the streets of the United States. It's in our national security interest to ensure the stability of fragile states everywhere.

Thirdly, it's in our economic interest. Some of the statistics that were noted I just want to re-emphasize, because I think they're important. U.S. exports since 2004 have grown at three times the pace -- to emerging markets have grown at three times the pace to the developed markets, and that's grown at 60 percent since 2004.

Ninety-five percent of the world's population reside outside the U.S., and 98 percent of population growth between now and mid-century will occur in developing and emerging markets. It's where the middle class is growing. It is consumers for U.S. goods and services, and the IMF estimates that non-advanced economies will account for 70 percent of global growth over the next five years.

Our economic future is tied to the prosperity and stability of the emerging and developing world, without question.

Fourthly, we should reward institutional reform. It goes back to the same point I made earlier about countries. The IMF is reforming itself. It is changing. It needs to do more. We all have a number of suggestions on how we could do a better job, but should reward that behavior. Institutional change in international organizations comes infrequently and I applaud the fund for the changes they are making.

And lastly, this is an important time for U.S. leadership. I spend a tremendous amount of time traveling around the world, and everywhere I go there is a belief that somehow U.S. power is on the descent, that U.S. values, U.S. principles are no longer relevant, that we live in a multipolar world, that possibly the Beijing agenda will become paramount. They're on the ascendancy. The U.S. needs to maintain its important leadership role in the global economy.

So let me just conclude by saying I strongly endorse the G-20's agenda, I strongly endorse the IMF component, and I would strongly urge this committee, this House and this Congress to move as quickly as possible.

Thank you.

REP. MEEKS: Thank you very much, and I think that you've given us all some food for thought.

Let me start out by asking a series of questions.

The G-20 agreed that the new arrangements to borrow should be expanded by ($)500 billion, and we've talked about and we've heard some, which is the topic that's among many of us here, that the Obama administration has proposed that the United States participate in this plan by extending a $100 billion line of credit to the IMF through the NAB.

Now, the G-20 also says that the enhanced NAB would be more "flexible," quote-unquote, in its operations, though it's not clear what flexible means, you know, what's proposed by flexibility and what might be entailed therein.

So my questions are, have the terms for access and use of the current NAB been too restrictive, first, and if you think so, how might they be improved? Should Congress require the administration to provide it with the ground rules for the new, enhanced NAB before it goes into effect? These are decisions that we've got to decide. And are there any ground rules that you believe Congress should mandate for U.S. participation in the new NAB program?

And so I throw those out to you first. And anyone can jump at it who wants.

MR. BHATTACHARYA: The NAB of the past was essentially a fairly complicated legal instrument, as we understand it, which restricted in many ways the speed and the flexibility of the use of resources.

So when the new Japanese loan, which is ($)100 billion, was negotiated, the IMF and Japan agreed to several improvements that would allow for considerable flexibility in the use of the Japanese money in association with programs that were put in place. And the aim is to move towards a more multilateral version of that through the new arrangements to borrow.

As I said, the only other point I would make, though, is that this is a temporary arrangement and there must be a balance between the temporary arrangement and the permanent size of the fund. It would seem unseemly to have temporary arrangements of twice the size of the fund, so a very important part of the conditions that I was saying is that there must be a bridge to an agreement to increase the permanent size of the fund through quota increases.

Now, that is in the G-20 agreement that would be done by January, and that's something that could be part of the guidance that could be given. The other part of the guidance on the NAB, of course, is that it must be linked to some of the governance reforms that many of us were talking about.

MS. BIRDSALL: My view would be that the relevant issue in terms of flexibility is associated not only with the NAB but with the operations of the IMF in general, and here I think what's useful to recognize is that the IMF has been going through a process of reform in terms of streamlining and reducing conditionality for some years and that recently with the agreement on what's called the flexible credit line the IMF has finally set up an instrument. It's only available to a limited number of countries that have a record of good macro policy, but it's going in the right direction. It allows countries to have access to resources when they need those resources without really paying much, if anything, until they actually ask for those resources.

A number of countries -- as mentioned, Mexico, Poland -- have already applied for this flexible credit line, which is a very good sign that there's something about the way this was set up that is reducing the domestic political problem that many leaders faced within countries because of the stigma of going to the IMF.

I think there are other issues around the NAB that are specific, such as other countries being able to contribute than were originally, so I'm not sure, frankly, what the leadership meant by more flexible, but I do think that the Congress should emphasize the need for the Treasury in implementing lending in the future from the IMF, particularly in the light of the crisis, to be more flexible and to push in the direction it's been taking already.

REP. MEEKS: Here's the difficulty -- and then I'll ask Mr. Johnson; then I'm going to yield to the ranking member, Mr. Miller.

I think what I've heard both of you say thus far is everyone agrees that there needs to be some kind of reform and we've got to move, and though progress is starting to happen, we still know that reform is generally slow. And what I've also heard from many who come before me is the urgent need, and I think I'm hearing some of that from you, of the recapitalization of the IMF and the World Bank and other institutions.

There's a trade-off, though. You know, we are pressured here in Congress talking about there has to be reform, and then there's an urgency for recapitalization. How does that trade-off play? You know, and that's a difficulty I think some of us will have in deciding which way we go on this committee and in this Congress.

MR. JOHNSON: I think, to answer your original question, the Treasury should come and explain to you much more precisely what they have in mind with regard to the flexibility. They're obviously just one voice at the table, but they're a very important voice, at the IMF.

I think part of the flexibility we're seeing around the flexible credit line is sensible, but it's a pretty small step. Only three countries so far have signed up. I think you need at least a dozen to really establish the credibility of that.

And secondly, around conditionality, some of the progress we're seeing, for example, protecting social spending, is very sensible and long overdue. But some of the retreat from structural conditionality is, I think, a mistake. And so there's a lot of details getting lost in the translation here between the various statements that you really need to follow up on and pin down Treasury on exactly what they have in mind.

MS. BIRDSALL: Mr. Chairman, let me just add that I think it's very important to recognize that this kind of hearing in itself helps create the right kind of benign pressure, both on the administration and the Treasury and indirectly on IMF management and staff and board. So my view is that the direction is right and that it's very important to continue providing a lot of guidance to Treasury on the position the U.S. should be taking on increasing this flexibility while retaining, as I say in my written testimony, the rationale behind some conditionality at some times in some settings.

The point is that right now we have a global economic emergency and this is the time to provide the resources and to be sure that those resources are used as quickly and urgently as particularly the poor countries need them.

It is useful also to push for the idea of something like the flexible credit line being made available to low-income countries. At the moment, that facility is really meant for middle-income emerging- market economies. There should be something absolutely comparable, with the exception of the cost, for the poorest countries. Many of them meet the standard in terms of macroeconomic management and good governance that some emerging-market economies have met.

REP. MEEKS: Mr. Miller.

REP. MILLER: Thank you.

I think it's incumbent on us to demonstrate to the American people that we're trying to do the right thing, and as you all recognize, we're in most unusual times for this country. We have a budget deficit of about $1,830,000,000,000. I mean, it's staggering when you look at that. And in California specifically we have an unemployment rate of about 11.2 percent, and in the Inland Empire region of our area, which has been an economic engine for California, it's actually in excess of 12 percent.

It's actually greater than that in reality because you figure one out of six people work for government, and government unemployment's virtually zero. So when you add that number to the equation, unemployment amongst the private sector is really much greater than 11.2 percent in California than the show out there.

Now, if we're going to commit $100 billion to the IMF, how do we ensure that these resources are being used to address economic stability and assist in our global economic recovery? How do we show that that's going to be done? Can you try to address that? Because there's great concern about that.

MS. BIRDSALL: I'm sorry, was that addressed to any of us?

REP. MILLER: Yes, whoever would like to -- I mean, it's a lot of money, especially during our economic times. And you've justified a great need and you demonstrated how that need will benefit the overall developing countries of the world, but how do we ensure the resources are being used to address stability? How can we guarantee that?

MR. ADAMS: I'll take a crack at it, Congressman.

First of all, this is an insurance policy. It's a continent line of credit, so it's only used if called upon, and as Dr. Birdsall noted, it is for the best performers, those who have achieved a certain level of performance standards that I think are pretty rigorous.

So it is for those who have done the right thing, who have been good performers, and for no fault of their own they are the collateral damage, suffering the collateral damage of the crisis, which in some ways really started here in the United States.

Two is I was just looking at a report from JPMorgan put out yesterday that said strong IFI support -- international financial institution support -- appears to be working to address the fears of extreme balance of payments tail risk in emerging markets. So there's a sense that just the signaling effect of the desire to use these resources and have these new resources in effect is having a stabilizing impact on global markets. So in some ways it's already begun working. We just have to ensure that the resources are there to support this signaling effect.

But I think it goes back to an earlier point -- with greater flexibility for managing these programs, which I think are important, that the Treasury will have to have appropriate oversight, and this body will have to hold the Treasury Department accountable for these actions.

REP. MILLER: But you used a real term out there that the economy recognizes right now, and you said line of credit. And I can name business after business, industry after industry, that normally had lines of credit that have been completely terminated because of the economy today, to no fault of their own. They've done the right thing; they've tried to pay their bills; many are current. But the lines of credit that they need to continue their business have been terminated just because the industry is so questionable. So although it's a line of credit, I recognize that, but the American people are looking at that as hard dollars because that's what lines of credit are. If you need the money, it's going to be there.

And we just need to demonstrate to the American people that their global recovery is going to benefit them in us making the investment. So if the other three would like to respond to that, I'd really appreciate it.

And I'm not arguing, don't get me wrong. I think we've got a level we must meet as elected officials to say we're doing the right thing with these type of dollars.

MR. BHATTACHARYA: Yeah, I want to just put it in perspective in terms of the original sin.

There's been a withdrawal of something like $1 trillion of finance from the developing world, through no fault of their own. So this is a tsunami of gargantuan proportions, and the money that is being used is really not money in some sense to make up for some fault of theirs, it's essentially a firewall to ensure that the crisis doesn't get deeper in that part of the world.

And that helps that moment of extreme fragility in confidence you don't want other sources of worries to come up, and by preventing it you are helping us all and you're not going to use that money in these cases, as was pointed out, with much risk.

There are some other cases which are the more difficult cases -- for example, some countries in Eastern Europe which are facing somewhat more difficult circumstances. So what are the protections there?

And as Ms. Birdsall pointed out, the IMF is a very conservative institution. It may be the lender of last resort in some ways, but it is also the lender that gets paid back first, and that's been the track record. So this is relatively smart use of very limited money to produce a world in which we can climb out of this crisis in a way that manages the risks and manages the spillovers from it.

The part where you really do need some generosity is for the poorest countries, but that's a very different part of the equation from the NAB.

REP. MILLER: And I really appreciate that comment. You said they're in the situation due to no fault of their own, and see, we have to justify what we're doing to the American people who've lost their jobs due to no fault of their own. And so I know $100 billion with what we're trying to do may seem like a paltry amount, but to real people in this country that's a lot of money.

And Ms. Birdsall, I know you had a response to Mr. Johnson. Then I will --

MS. BIRDSALL: I just wanted to reiterate a point made earlier in a slightly different way, that in 2008 the U.S. economy grew very little, if at all. Virtually all of our growth in 2008 was associated with our exports, with the increases in our exports, and a substantial amount of those exports went to developing countries.

So I think that that is an argument I hope that can help make sense to even those American businesses that have had their own lines of credit terminated, that to the extent that jobs in the U.S. depend in part on ensuring there is this firewall that prevents the rest of the world from sinking further into difficulty and not having the wherewithal to purchase our own exports. We are better off to deal with the fires everywhere.

REP. MILLER: Yeah. I recognize what you said about the exports. Many people think that their jobs were also exported to other countries, and that's a difficult thing for them to understand right now.

Mr. Johnson.

MR. JOHNSON: I think the way you're framing the question is entirely appropriate and I would suggest two answers.

First of all, the United States has a veto. There's no major decision that the IMF can make without the United States' approval and agreement, and the IMF is located two blocks from the White House for a reason, okay?

No, this is very important. The way the IMF operates, the way the IMF thinks is very much related to and influenced by what the administration is doing, and that's why you need to understand what Treasury wants them to do, because Treasury is not calling all the shots, but they have a huge (driving ?) influence there.

And the second thing is, much more bluntly than exports, the price you pay on your credit as an American business, the risk premium that is demanded are from all of us, whether we want to borrow against our mortgages. It's determined by the level of risk in the global financial market. It's a global financial market.

Right now, the major risks, not just according to the IMF but according to everybody who looks at this seriously, the major risk is outside the United States. If it was just up to the U.S., we'd be beginning to get on our way to a decent recovery. It's the instability in emerging markets and, frankly, in Western Europe that's really the big danger here, and that comes back and hits every household and every firm in the U.S. smack in the face if it goes wrong.

REP. MILLER: Thank you for your thoughtful answers.

REP. MEEKS: Ms. Moore?

REP. MOORE: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly feel very grateful to this distinguished panel for visiting with us today.

Mr. Chairman, are we going to have more than one round of questions?

REP. MEEKS: Well, I see that we have votes coming up.

REP. MOORE: Okay, all right, so I have to pick and choose.

REP. MEEKS: Otherwise, I would like to have more than one round.

REP. MOORE: Okay. I guess one of the first things that -- my time is limited, so I want to straighten something out between Ms. Birdsall and Mr. Johnson.

I heard you, Ms. Birdsall, say that we needed to continue governance reforms at the IMF and China should be brought in, but I also noted from Mr. Johnson's testimony that the IMF credibility has been damaged by our inability to follow through on the exchange rate surveillance, particularly with regard to China, and that these competitive devaluations or even accidental undervaluations will lead to greater global imbalances and potential instability as countries compete to get current account surpluses over other countries.

And I guess I need a little bit more appreciation for this. I think this undervaluation of currency, particularly in China, and the fact that they ought to be brought in really is something that I've been struggling with for a long time, so I appreciate having your expertise today to address that.

MS. BIRDSALL: Yes, let me try to address that and see if Simon wants to add to what I say.

He's absolutely right. I don't disagree at all with the point he's making, which can be put this way: that the IMF has been relatively toothless, unfortunately, in addressing the global imbalance, which I would characterize in simple terms as follows. The Chinese are doing all the saving and exporting, and the U.S. has been doing all the borrowing and importing.

So the global imbalance was the outcome of difficulties and poor arrangements, both in China and in the U.S., and the reality is that the IMF, unfortunately, despite its warnings -- it's not as though there was not written down from time to time by the staff and by management an explication of this problem -- it's difficult to discipline major powers. So it's in the interests of the U.S. to have China at the table and to be engaged more and more in the discussions of how our behavior and China's behavior create risks for all of the rest of the world.

It's not going to be perfect ever, but my own view is that we need, in addition to clubs and networks where countries get together, we need to bring as many countries that are powerful, like ourselves and like China, into institutions where they can be subject to and make themselves subject to rules of the game and honor those rules. That makes everyone better off, both Americans and those in the rest of the world.

I don't know if Simon would put it differently.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, I would put it slightly differently, although I broadly agree. But there is, of course, a major difference between the United States and China. The United States has a floating, flexible exchange rate in which we don't intervene on a systematic basis, whereas the Chinese exchange rate is, for all intents and purposes, a fixed, managed exchange rate, which means that if they fall into an undervalued situation for whatever reason and they wish to remain there, they have to accumulate -- the process of keeping that exchange undervalued means they will accumulate a large amount of foreign reserves.

And what has happened is they've amassed almost $2 trillion in reserves. Now, I'm not saying this is the main driver of the crisis. I am saying that it has undermined -- the inability to deal with it undermined their credibility.

But going forward, think of it like this: Every emerging market and developing country that has this potential thinks wow, I'd love to have $2 trillion equivalent for my size of country. That's clearly a big stabilizer for me individually. (At the level ?) of the system, that's a huge destabilizer. The only way you can have more accumulation in reserves, more current account surplus, is somebody's running a deficit.

Well, that might be the United States, it might be the euro zone. Whoever it is, it's not going to be a stabilizing force. You need the countries to buy into the system, you need a governance change, you need re-legitimization. I advocate an emerging market person to head the IMF next time next time the job comes up, which I think will be quite soon, because we must have some teeth on the exchange rate surveillance.

REP. MOORE: Okay, so is this part of the reform that is occurring at the IMF now? What ability do they have to enforce this -- see my time is expiring, and I --

REP. MEEKS: Just finish up the question and then I want to make sure we get to Mr. Manzullo if he has time. And then we can come back around if we have time before the vote.

REP. MOORE: Is this a reform that the IMF is undergoing, and how do they get this club, this billy club, to enforce it?

MS. BIRDSALL: You know what, I would say at the moment that the most important thing is for the IMF to have additional sufficient resources so that the countries, the other emerging-market economies, see collective insurance as the -- they can count on the IMF. They do not need to build up their reserves. They do not need to abandon flexible exchange rates.

And the same thing might be said for China, which is trying now to increase domestic demand. It has a very big stimulus package, so you could argue that it's maybe not enough, but it's moving in the right direction. But none of these countries will go to a position where it works for the overall global economy unless they are reassured that they have someplace to go in the event of a shock.

So what we want is collective insurance instead of all this self- insurance which contributed to the imbalance which in turn contributed to our current problem.

REP. MOORE: Thank you so much.

And Mr. Chairman, this was a very important question, but it prevented me from asking some other questions so I hope that there's another round.

REP. MEEKS: Hopefully we get a chance to come back around.

Mr. Manzullo.

REP. DONALD A. MANZULLO (R-IL): Thank you very much.

I have a question to ask you, Ms. Birdsall, and then the clerk is passing out a document that was agreed to, the Global Plan for Recovery and Reform, on 2 April, 2009 at the G-20. You had mentioned in your testimony, you said, quote, "no way U.S. taxpayers would be taking a risk." The issue here is that the Congressional Budget Office, on the initial draw of ($)100 billion, is unable to score it at this point, either the full cost or as opposed to a zero score, which the White House had requested.

But it's true, is it not, that if these nations default on these loans that the default runs up the line and that the American taxpayers could end up losing some money?

MS. BIRDSALL: I don't know if others can speak more effectively to this point, but were those borrowers to default on the IMF, the IMF does have the resources to pay back the line of credit to the U.S.

REP. MANZULLO: Then is that the reason why they would sell the gold?

MS. BIRDSALL: For example, in addition to the current planned gold sales, they could call on other assets.

Simon's probably better on this.

REP. MANZULLO: Well, I want to go to something else, then we can come back to that, if that's okay. We just passed out this document, the Global Plan for Recovery and Reform. Are you folks familiar with this, the document that was signed --

MS. BIRDSALL: Yes.

REP. MANZULLO: -- or agreed to at the G-20? And if you take a look at paragraph 15 on the third page, it talks about establishing a new financial stability board with the strength and mandate and that it should collaborate, bullet point two, collaborate with the IMF to provide early warning of financial risks.

But then the next bullet point says, "to extend regulation and oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, markets and instruments." This includes for the first time systemically important hedge funds. The fourth bullet point is, "to endorse and implement the FSF's tough new principles on pay and compensation with the support, sustainable compensation schemes and the corporate social responsibility of all firms."

This is perhaps why the European Central Bank came out and attacked the infusion of $100 billion into the IMF and why they called it possibly containing the seeds of a global currency in its own right.

What does this document intend to do? I mean, what's the purpose of it? It specifically mentions the ($)250 billion new allocation in paragraph five.

MR. ADAMS: Congressman, obviously it's a product of a committee, so it represents enormous compromise.

With respect to the financial stability board -- is a recognition of the work of the former financial stability forum, at which when I was at Treasury I actually participated in.

REP. MANZULLO: Right, right.

MR. ADAMS: So that is just giving it formal recognition --

REP. MANZULLO: To?

MR. ADAMS: -- as a body to coordinate and share best practices among and between the regulators.

REP. MANZULLO: But it says, "to extend regulation and oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, instruments and markets, and also tough new principles on pay and compensation. Isn't this an international standard to determine the pay and compensation of banks that may be parties, or banks whose countries are parties to the G-20?

MR. ADAMS: Well, I can't speak to this particular -- I don't know the origin or the negotiations that went to this.

I think the idea was, again, to try to create an environment where you could exchange ideas --

REP. MANZULLO: No, I understand that. I understand it. But one of the statements made from Ms. Birdsall was, quote, "We need to bring the big countries together" to, quote, "make them subject to the rules of the game," to make this a legal document binding upon the G-20 countries.

MR. ADAMS: No, I think she meant -- and I'll let her speak for herself -- but it's a phrase we've used before with respect to exchange rate surveillance is within the fund to have a sense of the rules of the game, of what is appropriate behavior and what is not appropriate behavior, and what will the institution, the fund specifically accept as appropriate behavior with particular reference to foreign exchange --

REP. MANZULLO: So you were referencing just foreign exchange rules and not binding IMF rules and regulations upon the countries that are signatories to the IMF, is that correct?

MS. BIRDSALL: I certainly was not endorsing what it in this April statement from the summit, which, as Tim Adams was suggesting, is the outcome of a number of compromises. My understanding is that these sorts of principles dealing with compensation schemes, probably that was a position taken not by the United States by this administration necessarily, but the idea is that there would be principles.

I think that there's been no agreement, however, amongst the G-20 leaders that could said to be reflected in this statement.

REP. MANZULLO: Well, I understand that.

MS. BIRDSALL: They were the international rules imposed on all members.

REP. MANZULLO: But don't you think that this is pretty shocking, that this agreement should be literally endorsed by the G-20, Spain, the signatory to the FSF, that attempts to set an international standard for compensation to financial institutions, markets and instruments?

MS. BIRDSALL: Well, I think it says new principles.

Yeah, go ahead, Simon.

MR. JOHNSON: Sorry, I don't think it's shocking at all. The point is, and this is I think exactly what the committee is trying to get at, which is that the global financial system has become unstable.

REP. MANZULLO: No, I understand. You don't think this --

MR. JOHNSON: They're trying to address this and they retrying to establish --

REP. MANZULLO: No, I understand that, Mr. Johnson. You don't --

MR. JOHNSON: -- (inaudible) -- compensation that will reduce that instability.

REP. MANZULLO: But you don't think it's shocking that an international body would attempt to control the salaries of executives of financial institutions whose countries are members of the G-20? You don't consider that to be shocking?

MR. JOHNSON: I don't think they're trying to control the compensation levels at all. What they're trying to do is address the issue, which has been raised by the financial industry itself in this country and in Europe, that there is unnecessary, excessive and mismanaged risk-taking in the largest financial --

REP. MANZULLO: But that's not what the bullet point said.

REP. MEEKS: The gentleman's time has expired and we have a vote going on, so let me take this time to thank this distinguished panel.

I tell you on behalf of this subcommittee, I think that your testimony was excellent and very thought-provoking. I look forward to working with you in the future as this committee continues to delve into the issues that you've talked about and I think in more detail, especially the plight of the least-developed countries of the world and how we can help those economies in dealing with some of the sociopolitical realities.

Let me note that some members may have additional questions for this panel which they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days for members to submit written questions of these witnesses and to place their responses in the record.

And at this time, this hearing stands adjourned. (Sounds gavel.)

Source