In a Congress eager to do the bidding of Big Business, an item atop the Chamber of Commerce's corporate welfare agenda is in serious jeopardy.

On September 17, the House of Representatives refused to grant a gigantic funding request for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The insatiable IMF -- a multilateral institution that lends money to countries when they are unable to pay foreign creditors -- is asking for $18 billion from the United States, part of a $90 billion proposed expansion. The House agreed to $3.5 billion, which will go to an emergency credit line for bailouts, but refused to fund a $14.5 billion request for IMF expansion through a "quota increase."

With good reason, Big Business has grown increasingly worried that IMF funding, which it once considered a lock, may not be approved. In an effort to solidify support for IMF corporate welfare, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the

Business Roundtable have all stepped up their lobbying efforts in recent months.

In a letter to members of Congress, the Chamber even alleged that "continued U.S. economic prosperity may hinge on Congressional backing of the IMF."

That is quite an astounding claim. The basis of the Chamber's argument is that the IMF helps foreign economies, which in turn buy from the United States. But the IMF has an abysmal record in promoting growth in countries whose economies it has supervised. In order to receive loans from the IMF, countries have to agree to the Fund's conditions, including sharp budget cuts, increased interest rates, regressive tax increases, currency devaluation and other measures which typically throw poor countries into recession.

No, Corporate America is not backing the IMF for the good of the U.S. economy. When the IMF forces Third World countries to become low-wage exporters of manufactured goods, that does not help the U.S. economy. IMF policies help shift manufacturing jobs out of the United States and put downward pressure on the wages of jobs that remain in the United States.

Big Business has made IMF expansion a priority because, for them, the IMF is a multi-pronged welfare machine.

First, the IMF bails out big banks and foreign investors when they make bad loans in developing countries -- investments that are understood to be risky at the time they were made, and earn more as a result.

In 1995, the IMF contributed almost $18 billion to a Clinton administration bailout of the Wall Street interests who stood to lose billions with the peso devaluation. Last year and early this year, the Fund orchestrated a massive bailout of the big banks that made bad loans to Asian countries. About the only pain felt by the banks was the need to reschedule short-term loans. Recently, the IMF has done it again, bailing out foreign investors in Russia with an $11 billion package that will go straight into the pockets of foreign lenders.

Second, the IMF forces poor countries to discard economic policies and regulations that limit the power of corporations, especially foreign ones. That makes it easier for U.S. and other multinational companies to benefit from low wages and other perks -- like weak environmental regulations -- of operating in much of the developing world.

And finally, the IMF is intent on expanding its powers, so that member countries remove all restrictions on the inflow and outflow of money – what the IMF calls "capital account liberalization." This will help banks and financial corporations make super-profits in troubled economies like Russia's. Such assistance would be especially perverse given the fact that, in the event of a troubled economy's collapse, the IMF provides those investors with free, de facto insurance.

Increasingly, members of Congress are coming to see the flaws in the IMF. Many Republicans in the House of Representatives have seen the flaws in the IMF bailouts -- they understand that each bailout enables more imprudent behavior by Wall Street -- and are opposing IMF expansion. Now, a growing number of Democrats are coming around to the view that an institution with such a horrid record does not merit a $90 billion expansion, with the United States footing the bill for $18 billion.

With the House refusing to authorize the requested $14.5 billion for the quota increase, the challenge now is for activists and the bipartisan group of IMF opponents to prevent a House-Senate conference committee from bowing to a Big Business lobbying blitz, and adding the $14.5 billion into the bill presented to both houses for final passage.