PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 23, 1999
Debt Relief and IMF Reform Act of 1999 - Amends the Bretton Woods Agreements Act to prohibit the U.S. director to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) from voting for any proposal to sell gold, unless: (1) Congress has enacted a joint resolution authorizing its sale; (2) the IMF has canceled all debts owed to it by countries eligible for debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative and Haiti; (3) the Secretary of the Treasury demonstrates to Congress that there is no other feasible way to finance the cancellation of such debts; (4) the most recent operational IMF budget has been published, with any information that could disrupt financial markets or affect adversely the national security of any country redacted, and other specified requirements met; (5) Congress has enacted a joint resolution certifying that the IMF is in full compliance with specified conditions imposed by title VI of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1999; (6) the proposal to sell meets certain conditions; (7) the interest accruing to the IMF on any investment of the residual sale proceeds will be used for the provision of debt relief for such countries without conditions; and (8) the U.S. Government budget displays costs of U.S. participation in the IMF, in accordance with the guidelines provided in the President's Commission on Budget Concepts.Prohibits U.S. officers, employees or agents from providing any thing of value to the IMF for the purpose of providing resources to the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility (ESAF) or other concessional lending facility of the IMF. Amends the Bretton Woods Agreements Act to require the U.S. director of the IMF to use every effort to terminate the ESAF.Prohibits appropriations for payments to the IMF until it has canceled all debts owed to it by HIPCs and Haiti.Prohibits the U.S. governor to the IMF from voting for any proposal for any quota increase for the IMF, unless, before the proposal was made, Congress received notice of the proposal and the position of the Executive Branch on it, and Congress has enacted a joint resolution of approval.
People & committees
Rep. Saxton, Jim [R-NJ-3] · R–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy.
Referred to the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1939)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2939 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2939 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2939 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2939 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.