[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 17, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H440-H452]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WORLD BANK ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
General Leave
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and to submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 693 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3326.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1449
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3326) to increase accountability, combat corruption, and
strengthen management effectiveness at the World Bank, with Mr. Duncan
of Tennessee in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3326, the World Bank
Accountability Act. Frankly, I don't quite understand why every Member
is not rising in support of H.R. 3326.
[[Page H441]]
This is important legislation, which is sponsored by my friend from
Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade
Subcommittee. It was cosponsored by a senior Democrat on our committee,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). Mr. Chairman, it passed
our committee by a unanimous vote 60-0. Again, Mr. Chairman, this
measure passed our committee by a unanimous vote of 60-0.
H.R. 3326 makes a share of future World Bank appropriations
contingent upon vitally needed reforms, with focus on the World Bank's
International Development Association, known as IDA, which is the World
Bank's concessional lending window, dedicated to 75 of the world's
poorest countries.
Mr. Chairman, the reforms in this bill have emerged from five
different oversight hearings held in our committee over the past 2
years and they all enjoy bipartisan support.
The bill also supports the administration's goal of ensuring that the
World Bank's work is consistent with U.S. priorities that are,
obviously, financed by the U.S. taxpayer. In the President's FY 2018
budget, the administration called for a holding to account
international organizations whose missions don't advance U.S. foreign
policy's interest or which haven't been well managed. H.R. 3326 would
enact the administration's request for a 15 percent reduction on
authorized funds for IDA.
In addition, Mr. Barr's legislation contains crucial national
security provisions, including a prohibition on World Bank assistance
to countries that knowingly violate U.N. Security Council sanctions on
North Korea.
Also, safeguarding our national security is a provision that helps
ensure World Bank assistance won't be used for state sponsors of
terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense requirement that benefited from
the input of our democratic colleague on the committee: again, Mr.
Sherman from California.
So, again, Mr. Chairman, it does kind of beg the questions: Why are
we here today? Why are we debating a bill that received support from
every single Republican and Democrat on the committee?
As some who may be viewing our proceedings know, there is such a
thing known as a suspension calendar for relatively noncontroversial
items. This bill should have been dispensed with on what is known as a
suspension calendar since it passed our committee 60-0.
But now, apparently, the ranking member has had a change of heart on
opposing a bill that she voted for on committee. So some may be
confused, and indeed we are confused. It is interesting that we now see
opposition to linking these IDA payments to reforms, but that is
exactly what Democrats on the Financial Services Committee did in 2005.
It is exactly what they did when they voted to withhold 25 percent of
IDA funds in a foreign operation's appropriations bill. Last July, the
ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters),
consistent with her earlier vote, voted in support of H.R. 3326 as
well. So, again, some of us are confused as to why it is being opposed
now if she has voted for the policy of withholding twice, including
voting for the very bill we are debating today.
It is also important to note, Mr. Chairman, that the reforms included
in this bill are those that the World Bank itself deems are important.
As far back as 1992, a bank management review highlighted its perverse
staff incentives that made pushing money out the door more important
than making a dent in global poverty. And as recently as 2014, a bank
evaluation report confirmed that these very same perverse incentives
are still in place.
Then there is the notorious case of mismanagement in the Uganda
Transport Sector Development Project: a scandalous bank initiative,
where basic lack of project oversight led to sexual exploitation of
underage girls, repeated harassment of female staff, and deficient
safety measures that very well may have resulted in five fatalities--
lest we forget.
In 2015, the World Bank's president had this to say:
The multiple failures we have seen in this project on the
part of the World Bank, the government of Uganda, and a
government contractor are unacceptable. It is our obligation
to properly supervise all investment projects to ensure that
the poor and vulnerable are protected in our work. In this
case, we did not.
I am committed to making sure that we do everything in our
power, working with other stakeholders first, to fully review
the circumstance of this project, and then to quickly learn
from our, and other's, failures so they do not happen again.
Mr. Chairman, if the World Bank thinks these reforms are necessary,
shouldn't we all think these reforms are necessary?
And how about the testimony of Sasha Chavkin, a reporter for the
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, who testified
before our committee?
Sasha said:
We found that, over a decade, spanning from 2004 to 2013,
projects financed by the World Bank physically or
economically displaced an estimated 3.4 million people around
the world.
Mr. Chairman, these are some of the world's most vulnerable displaced
by the World Bank that screams out for more reforms.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Barr for saying with his legislation that
enough is enough. He has produced a serious, long overdue reform bill,
one that was supported in our committee unanimously 60-0. We typically
could not get a 60-0 vote on a Mother's Day resolution, yet we have it
for this bill. Again, it just begs credibility and credulity as to why
are we here today debating a bill that was passed unanimously in
committee. I urge the House to adopt it unanimously.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3326, the World Bank
Accountability Act of 2017.
Last year, Democrats on the Financial Services Committee joined our
Republican colleagues in favorably reporting H.R. 3326 out of committee
to support the bill's authorization of a U.S. contribution of $3.29
billion to multilateral development efforts and to enforce the
importance of U.S. leadership at the international financial
institutions, but the favorable report in committee came with clear
conditions for the future of the bill.
Democrats made it clear during consideration of this bill in
committee that our ongoing support for the measure would depend upon
changes to provisions in the bill moving forward that put critical U.S.
funding at risk. But here we are today and Republicans have not made
any effort at all to address our very specific concerns.
Namely, the bill would cut up to 30 percent of the U.S. contribution
to the International Development Association--IDA--in any year in which
the Treasury Secretary does not certify to Congress that the World Bank
has adopted or is taking steps to implement two sets of reforms
mandated in the bill.
IDA is the arm of the World Bank that provides grants and other
assistance to the world's 77 poorest countries, which are home to more
than 450 million people living in extreme poverty. Cuts to U.S. funds
to IDA would punish millions of children and other vulnerable people in
Africa, Latin America, and Asia, who are living in extreme poverty, who
are suffering from famine, or who are emerging from conflict.
Democrats do not believe that cutting U.S. funds for, and diminishing
U.S. influence at, the international financial institutions is an
effective approach to reform.
{time} 1500
To remedy this problem with the bill, Representative Moore, who is
the ranking member on our committee's Subcommittee on Monetary Policy
and Trade, had sought to offer an amendment on the floor to strike the
provisions in the bill that would give the administration cover to cut
U.S. funding from multilateral efforts aimed at alleviating global
poverty. The amendment would have maintained both sets of reforms
currently in the bill and directed the Secretary of the Treasury to
actively promote these policy goals through advocacy and direct
engagement with World Bank management as well as the World Bank's other
major shareholders.
Unfortunately, the Rules Committee refused to make this amendment in
[[Page H442]]
order, thus depriving the House of the opportunity to decide for itself
which approach it prefers to take: reforming the World Bank by fiat
with a threat to cut funding or reforming the World Bank through the
exercise of U.S. influence and power at the World Bank based on the
merits of the reforms themselves.
Mr. Chairman, the process by which this bill has come to the floor
stands in stark contrast to our committee's long history of working
together on issues relating to global economic governance.
For many years, the Financial Services Committee has worked in a
bipartisan fashion to achieve a number of important reforms at the
World Bank, including increased transparency, the creation of the
inspection panel, more disclosure of information, and closer
consultation with local communities most affected by World Bank
projects.
We were able to successfully advance these policy goals through
serious and direct negotiations and sustained engagement with both the
Department of the Treasury and the World Bank itself, not by
threatening to walk away from our commitments, but the Trump
administration has consistently demonstrated troubling attitudes toward
the role of the U.S. in the world.
In November of last year, in testimony before the Financial Services
Committee, David Malpass, Treasury's Under Secretary for International
Affairs, expressed the administration's view that globalism and
multilateralism have gone substantially too far.
In December, the Trump administration refused to pledge any funds for
the next replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural
Development, a small multilateral development bank that helps the poor
in remote, rural areas where few donors operate. Of course, just last
week, this President made ignorant, racist, and deplorable comments
about Africa, where, as it happens, IDA focuses a great deal of its
resources and energy.
Mr. Chairman, the more committed we are to our goals and to our
ideals, the more morally obligated we are to do everything we can to
advance those goals.
The legislation before us today, in its current form, fails to meet
that test, so I will be opposing this legislation, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same. We can, and we should, do better.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the sponsor of the legislation that passed
unanimously 60-0 in our committee and the chairman of the Financial
Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I
thank him for his support and leadership in bringing my legislation to
the floor.
As Chairman Hensarling has already noted, H.R. 3326 passed the House
Financial Services Committee by a unanimous vote of 60-0. No amendments
were offered by any of our Democratic colleagues during that markup. So
it is disappointing to me that the ranking member is standing in
opposition today, despite voting for this bill in committee and then
waiting half a year before proposing any changes.
Nonetheless, I want to address the gentlewoman's criticism of the
withholding mechanism in this legislation, because she seems to share a
philosophy endemic at the World Bank, which basically says this: money
equals impact. But this runs counter to the evidence we have heard
again and again during multiple oversight hearings.
It also runs counter to how the World Bank itself operates with its
borrowers. The World Bank lends to poor countries by attaching
conditions. People can disagree if that conditionality is too much or
too little, but the World Bank affects behavior by telling governments
that there are no blank checks. The ranking member knows this, and it
goes without saying that there are many elements to World Bank
conditionality that the ranking member and her Democratic colleagues
passionately support, but if the gentlewoman from California would
never tolerate the World Bank writing blank checks to governments, it
is odd that she wants Congress to write a blank check to the World
Bank.
Here is how a former, longtime senior staff member of the World Bank
put it in testimony before our subcommittee last Congress: `` . . . the
reality is that bank staff are assessed by the volume of their lending,
dollars of money lent. And that is just a poor indicator of impact on
poverty. You have impact on poverty sometimes when you don't lend at
all.''
This perverse lending culture at the World Bank has been documented
for at least a quarter century and documented by the World Bank itself.
Mr. Chairman, I want to draw your attention to a 1992 bank management
review entitled, ``Effective Implementation: Key to Development
Impact'', commonly known as the Wapenhans Report, which details a
pressure to lend that distorts staff incentives at the expense of
management and project implementation. Again, this is from 1992.
Well, fast forward to 2014, and a report by the bank's own evaluation
office entitled, ``Learning and Results in World Bank Operations: How
the Bank Learns,'' concludes that the pressure to lend is alive and
well.
In addition to focusing on better incentives and management at the
World Bank, H.R. 3326 requires the World Bank to more effectively
support secure property rights, due process, and economic freedom. As
distinguished academics such as Nobel economics laureate Angus Deaton,
New York University's William Easterly, and the University of Chicago's
James Robinson have found, foreign aid makes little positive difference
if we are indifferent to the poor's right to exert control over their
livelihoods, own land and other assets, and be free from arbitrary
government interference.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if the World Bank supports a corrupt government,
that doesn't mean that it is going to help the condition of the
impoverished in that country that is denied economic freedom.
Why doesn't the ranking member support these commonsense principles?
If the bank doesn't lend with the rights of the poor in mind, then the
ranking member's concerns about withholding money aren't serious. If
money is being squandered and it isn't helping the poor to begin with,
why would you not want to withhold it?
Again, our Democratic friends love conditionality at the World Bank;
they just had a change of heart when a Republican-sponsored bill is
holding the World Bank to high standards. So let no one watching this
debate be fooled by crocodile tears.
Let me close by touching on the national security elements of this
bill, which the ranking member also plans to vote against.
H.R. 3326 incentivizes the World Bank to strengthen its work to fight
violent extremism and keep state sponsors of terrorism away from World
Bank resources. This latter provision was a direct result of bipartisan
discussions that we had in our subcommittee, so it is shocking to see
anyone on the other side of the aisle oppose the legislation.
Finally, this bill would also ensure that the U.S. oppose World Bank
financial assistance to countries that knowingly fail to enforce U.N.
Security Council sanctions against North Korea. Our committee passed
nearly identical language as part of the Otto Warmbier North Korea
Nuclear Sanctions Act, which I am proud to have sponsored, and the
provision benefitted directly from input from my subcommittee ranking
member, Ms. Moore. The committee vote, yet again, was unanimous on that
bill, and the House went on to pass it by a vote of 415-2.
It boggles the mind that any Member of this body would vote against
that language as part of H.R. 3326.
In closing, if the ranking member is upset that we take the interests
of the poor more seriously than the interests of the World Bank, then
so be it, but I believe the World Bank's interests and the poor's
interests should be aligned, not just in theory, but in practice, and
if they are not, it is the World Bank that should look at itself in the
mirror.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3326.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Texas really has presented rather hollow arguments that have no place
in this debate. This is about our humanitarianism and about our
strategic position in the world.
[[Page H443]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3326, the World Bank
Accountability Act of 2017.
Let me be clear, from the outset, that I support the World Bank and
its mission. The World Bank is a vital source of financial and
technical assistance to developing countries. It works to reduce
poverty and support development around the globe.
Let me also be clear that I support this bill's authorization of
$3.29 billion to the World Bank's International Development
Association, which provides grants and very low-interest loans to the
poorest 77 countries on the planet. These countries use this funding
for a wide array of investments in areas like education, health, public
administration, infrastructure, and resource development, but when I
voted for this bill in committee, I joined the ranking member and the
rest of my Democratic colleagues in making clear that my support was
dependent on working together on making changes to the bill as we moved
to the floor.
This is about the right of the minority to provide meaningful input
into legislation, and that was an agreement that we struck before we
voted on the bill.
Despite Democrats' best efforts, that did not happen, and there
continue to be provisions in this bill that need to be addressed.
For example, the bill calls for withholding 30 percent of the U.S.
contribution to IDA in any year over a 6-year period in which the
Treasury Secretary cannot certify to Congress that the World Bank has
adopted or is taking steps to implement two sets of reforms mandated in
the bill.
In addition, if the Treasury Department cannot report that the World
Bank has met either or both of these reforms in any given year, the
bill forces U.S. funding to the World Bank to be withheld and makes it
more difficult for the World Bank to implement these reforms going
forward.
As currently drafted, this bill reflects a total misunderstanding of
how the international system works. Multilateral institutions, like the
World Bank, which we set up, require sustained U.S. involvement and
leadership.
It is unrealistic to think that the U.S. can impose its will on the
World Bank. Withholding funds is not an effective approach to reform.
The only way to achieve the reforms we are seeking at the World Bank is
through our participation and commitment.
At times like this, we must not retreat from our involvement or
responsibility on the world stage.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Curtis). The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional
30 seconds to the gentlewoman.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Placing restrictions on our involvement or undermining
international efforts that promote growth and reduce poverty is not
something that we should support.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage every Member in the House to vote ``no'' on
this bill.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say
when my colleague on the other side of the aisle talks about meaningful
participation, not one single amendment was offered by my Democratic
friends. It was a perfect bill. It passed 60-0.
I would also point out the only leverage we have as the United States
is our contribution, and that is what this bill does.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Huizenga), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on
Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.
{time} 1515
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the World
Bank Accountability Act, sponsored by my friend from Kentucky (Mr.
Barr).
Having had the opportunity last Congress to chair the subcommittee
that Mr. Barr now leads, I can tell my colleagues that the reforms in
this bill are real and they're urgent.
Let me highlight one case of management failure at the World Bank
that I focused on last Congress, alongside with my ranking member, the
distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore). I think the
scandal will illuminate not only the reasoning behind the reforms
demanded by H.R. 3326 but, also, the mechanism for achieving those
reforms, as the chairman was pointing out. It is the power of our purse
that will effect change.
In 2015, the World Bank canceled an IDA--International Development
Association, as has been referred to--road project in Uganda. This
initiative saw appalling lapses in basic management by the Bank which,
literally, enabled sexual exploitation of children to happen. When
local Ugandans complained to the Bank staff, they were ignored. Only
after the Bank's ombudsman became involved directly did the Bank really
investigate the abuses.
My colleagues on the Financial Services Committee and I were so
outraged by the scandal that I, along with Ms. Moore, my ranking
member, wrote a letter on July 14 of 2016 to the World Bank demanding
corrective action.
Here is the thing: To underscore the gravity of the Bank's management
failures, we originally proposed a letter at the highest levels of the
committee, including the chairman and the ranking member. In fact, the
letter as it went out--and I will include it in the Record--was on the
letterhead of Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Maxine Waters.
And, unfortunately, the ranking member then refused to sign the letter,
then just leaving it as a subcommittee letter that went out by myself
and Ranking Member Moore.
Committee on Financial Services,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 14, 2016.
Dr. Jim Yong Kim,
President, World Bank Group,
Washington, DC.
Dear Dr. Kim: We are writing to express our alarm over the
World Bank's cancelled Uganda Transport Sector Development
Project. As you know, the Bank is facing serious allegations
related to misconduct by a Chinese contractor, including
sexual exploitation of minors, repeated harassment of female
staff, and deficient safety measures that may have resulted
in five fatalities. The Bank has admitted that its
supervision of the project was inadequate, particularly with
respect to protecting Ugandan girls.
In addition to negligent supervision, the Bank's slow
response to local communities' accusations is troubling.
According to the Bank's own timeline, Ugandans had to wait
six months from the time they first voiced their complaints
until the Bank's Country Director wrote to public authorities
requesting follow-up by law enforcement. Ten months elapsed
before the Bank suspended the project, and delays in the
Management Response meant that the Bank's Inspection Panel
did not visit Uganda until one year following the initial
allegations. As the Panel continues to investigate this case,
we urge you and Bank management to cooperate fully while
respecting the Panel's independence. We also ask that any
findings of negligence and wrongdoing lead to appropriate
disciplinary action,
The failure of this project to protect, let alone benefit,
Ugandans should inform supervision in all sectors and regions
going forward. We believe that the Bank must strengthen its
role in supervising and monitoring its projects to ensure
that the poor are protected in the Bank's work. Any actions
by the Bank that would weaken its oversight could undermine
support for the institution.
Additionally, the Bank has long faced criticism, including
from its own staff, for a culture that too often places the
volume of lending above concerns for the effectiveness of
that lending. Last October, the Subcommittee on Monetary
Policy and Trade held a hearing on the multilateral
development banks that explored this very problem, and a
report by the Bank's Independent Evaluation Group notes how
the ``pressure to lend'' has characterized the Bank's culture
for decades, often at the expense of development outcomes. It
is clear that such a culture can distract from the proper
preparation and administration of projects, including
monitoring and supervision, thus putting development at risk.
In the case of Uganda, the Bank clearly should have made
supervision a higher priority. We hope that future
beneficiaries, be they in Africa or elsewhere, will encounter
more capable and responsive partners at the Bank.
Sincerely,
Bill Huizenga,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.
Gwen Moore,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, I think what America just heard from the
last two speakers on the other side of the aisle was that, literally,
the Democrats
[[Page H444]]
wanted the money to the World Bank but not the reforms. That is why
they voted for the $3 million-plus to go into that account, that IDA
account.
How cynical. I mean, funding of IDA is about as good as putting a
Band-Aid on a car accident victim; right? It is not doing anything,
ultimately, if there is such woeful inadequacy in trying to provide the
true issues that need to be addressed.
So, the sexual abuse of underage Ugandans, not really interested in
talking to you about that; harassment of female project staff, not
really interested in talking about that on the other side of the aisle;
deficient project safety that may have resulted in five fatalities, not
interested in talking about that. So, when they rise, talking about how
much they care about the poor and those who are underserved--forgive me
if I am cynical, Mr. Chairman--it rings a bit hollow.
For the Bank, it got even worse. After sending this letter with Ms.
Moore, we received a response that the Bank was undertaking cosmetic
steps to improve their projects and their actions, such as creating a
task force.
Again, forgive me for being a little cynical about the task force,
but not only was the country manager associated with the Ugandan
project not held accountable, he was promoted to country director for
the Congo.
It still gets worse. Last November, we learned that the Bank was
suspending yet another road project in the Congo due to allegations of
sexual violence against women. The investigation is still underway
today, Mr. Chairman. And the Bank has already admitted that it ignored
repeated requests to the beneficiaries in the Congo to look at the
other complaints, but we are beginning to see a theme: let's just keep
the money flowing anyway.
Here is the thing: it was the same projects, the same people in
place. I am just wondering why they--whether it is the ranking member
or others who voted for this in subcommittee--refused to keep the
Bank's feet to the fire.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Michigan an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I am just confused as to why my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to hold the Bank's
feet to the fire because we have known about these issues for several
years. Task forces haven't been sufficient; rhetoric hasn't been
sufficient. We need real accountability in the Bank, and we need it
now. It needs to be initiated immediately, and then it needs to be
maintained and institutionalized.
So I thank my friend from Kentucky for taking this commonsense
approach and for demanding that the World Bank live up to its
commitments to the poor, whether they are in Africa or in other places
in the world.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3326.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
Today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3326, the World Bank
Accountability Act of 2017.
Let me start by stating how important our Nation's contributions are
to the World Bank's International Development Association, IDA. Those
funds support the largest source of development finance for the world's
poorest nations, including those in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.
That is why, at the committee level, I voted in favor.
Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that funding the World Bank's
development finance for poor nations represented America's highest
ideals and interests. And, naturally, I would support a bill like this,
but we had agreed that it wasn't the last word, that we would work and
there would be additions thereto and/or subtractions in reviewing the
bill.
In my estimation, looking at the bill, it also cedes too much
authority to the executive, and those concerns have not been addressed
in the final bill. For me, particularly in light of this
administration's statements just a few days ago, it is troubling that
it could be misused by this administration.
As written, the President, who has indicated a complete disdain for
poor nations and people of color, could withhold foreign assistance if
the World Bank does not conform to his administration's policies. It
would be a mistake to allow the President to coerce the World Bank to
fit his flawed world view, especially this President whose world view
is inconsistent with America's past leadership around the globe, and
that is whether it was a Democrat or Republican President.
Furthermore, the procedures in this bill do little to rebuild the
world's faith in our Nation because we are having a problem with all of
our allies, particularly the poor nations of the world, as to where we
stand.
So, clearly, our vision, this Nation, has deteriorated under the
current administration. Under this bill, our Nation could lose further
credibility around the world during a time when countries, especially
our allies, are uncertain about where our country stands on fundamental
democratic values.
Ultimately, the procedures in this bill could punish millions of
children and the vulnerable families in Africa, Latin America, and Asia
who could go without food and basic resources.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman
from New York an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, since we know of the President and his will to
withdraw from multilateral organizations and not work with others and
just work by himself, we know what his position is. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3326.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 4 minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), the vice chairman of Financial
Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
3326, the World Bank Accountability Act. I would like to thank the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade, Mr. Andy
Barr, for his hard work on this piece of legislation and for his
leadership on this important issue.
H.R. 3326 passed through the Financial Services Committee
unanimously, with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 60-0.
Mr. Chair, right now, the World Bank's International Development
Association, IDA, is an irresponsible benefactor for the world's
neediest nations. At the core of my concerns within the World Bank, I
take great issue with the Bank's offering employee incentives for
approving new loans. The Bank, itself, has even documented that they
harvest a culture that encourages loan volume rather than approval
based on merit and approval based on need.
H.R. 3326 will help eliminate these illogical incentives at the World
Bank that prioritize pushing money out the door rather than delivering
authentic and helpful solutions.
In addition to mass lending from the Bank, careless lending is
equally disconcerting and has made it easier for corrupt regimes to
abuse their citizens and exploit the money for terrorism-related
efforts. To address this issue, H.R. 3326 ensures that the World Bank
cannot approve funds for a country that has been classified by the
United States as a state sponsor of terrorism, and it demands that the
U.S. decline Bank loans to countries that knowingly fail to impose U.N.
Security Council sanctions against the North Korean regime.
Additionally, this bill will encourage improvements within the World
Bank by withholding up to 30 percent of future appropriations for the
World Bank's IDA until the Treasury reports that the Bank has
undertaken meaningful reforms in order to combat corruption, strengthen
management accountability, and undermine violent extremism. By passing
this legislation, we require the World Bank to put more faith in free
enterprise as opposed to corrupt regimes that abuse the poor.
If the World Bank is serious about helping those who need it most, it
should make certain that borrowing governments are committed to the
welfare of their citizens. The World Bank has been slipping through the
cracks far too long, and it is time to implement meaningful and lasting
reforms.
[[Page H445]]
Once again, I commend Representative Barr for introducing this
necessary legislation. I encourage the House to follow the Financial
Services Committee's lead by passing H.R. 3326.
In God we trust.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), the senior member of the
Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade of the Financial Services
Committee.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3326 as
it currently stands.
This is a disappointment to me. I, like many of my colleagues,
originally voted to support this legislation in committee, with the
understanding that both sides of the aisle would continue to work to
allay the concerns that elements of this bill would give the Trump
administration new and disruptive tools that would likely be used to
the detriment of the World Bank's mission and our relationships with
other countries.
There was an understanding to negotiate changes, but this legislation
we will be voting on today does not reflect that promise. In light of
that failure, my colleague, Gwen Moore, offered an amendment that would
have set aside our concerns, but this amendment was not made in order,
so we will not be voting on that either.
This bill does have elements that are important to our country's
obligation to some of the poorest countries in the world. The World
Bank provides grants and highly concessional loans through the
International Development Association, the IDA, to the world's 77
poorest countries. This money goes a long way towards raising the
standard of living, public health, and economic growth for the 450
million people who live there.
Since World War II, the United States has stood as a strong partner
and a leader in the multilateral work to improve the quality of life
around the world. Our success has relied on the diligent support of
American lawmakers, diplomats, and groups around the world that work
closely with allies and partner organizations throughout the world to
provide assistance in times of great crisis.
But our confidence that this administration's broad discretion to
defund the IDA--provided in the bill we will be voting on--would not be
abused, frankly, was not improved by the President's recent racist
remarks last week.
We are constantly reminded of the continuing importance of this
mission and the need to pledge our support to the poorest countries in
the world, to offer aid for the neediest individuals. Time after time,
however, the Trump administration has shown itself incapable of using
the resources that Congress gives it to work in constructive ways
within multilateral organizations, instead, alienating our allies and
undermining our country's reputation and mission. While I support this
legislation's authorization of $3.29 billion for multilateral
development efforts for these countries, the poorly conceived and
defined conditions in this legislation make it impossible to support.
Any withholding of U.S. contributions to IDA is a serious action that
would have devastating consequences. It would punish millions of
children and other vulnerable groups in Africa, Latin America, and
Asia, many of whom live in absolute poverty. It would also limit our
ability to help individuals in famine-ridden parts of the world and
refugees in fragile areas. They rely on humanitarian assistance for
food and water.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30
seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, they rely on humanitarian assistance for food,
water, and basic medical care and could face death without this
assistance.
Many of the provisions in this bill, as written, would place
conditions on U.S. contributions to IDA that, in the hands of the Trump
administration, would not be an effective approach to reform and could
very well undermine efforts to reduce poverty and promote growth. This
would damage our country's historic and noble mission to lead the world
in assisting the poorest countries with food, clean water, and medical
help.
So, with reluctance, I have to encourage my colleagues to vote ``no''
on this bill and hope that it comes back to the floor with the
bipartisan input that we were promised.
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in
personalities toward the President.
{time} 1530
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Davidson), another hardworking member of the Financial
Services Committee who knows this bill passed 60-0 with no Democratic
amendments offered.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of our committee and
the chairman of our subcommittee for making great points and for
pushing forward this great legislation.
The Members opposed to this legislation were for it before they were
against it, as has been pointed out. But the other thing is the premise
of the argument that is being made in opposition to this bill: that the
United States should somehow give money, just spend the money,
regardless of how poorly the World Bank will deploy this capital,
regardless of whether they are effective or not in accomplishing the
important mission of helping address poverty in some of the poorest
nations in the world.
The specific purpose of this fund is to address poverty, and it has
not done a very good job of doing that. Frankly, they have abused the
funds they have had. So the premise would be that somehow we can just
spend the money and trust that somehow they are going to get better.
Well, thankfully, when we were talking about it in committee and when
we have talked about it on this side of the argument here--and I hope
there is truly broad bipartisanship support for this bill to show to
the American people we do expect a return on our dollars. We expect
results for the money that comes to this body to spend on behalf of the
United States of America.
I think the other premise is that somehow, unless we just send the
money with no strings attached and no expectation of results, then we
are not engaged in the world, that somehow we have withdrawn from the
world and we don't care.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Because we do care, we are
putting terms and conditions on the money. Because we do care about
poverty and the results, we care that the World Bank operates, frankly,
to accomplish its mission.
So while some would look for bigger, bolder reforms and maybe better
use of U.S. tax dollars, we certainly expect some accountability for
those results. This is a very measured objective in this bill, and I
commend our committee for coming to this consensus 60-0 in committee.
Mr. Chairman, I hope for a similar outcome when we call the vote on
the floor of the House.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the vice ranking member of
the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. I
appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns with the way this
bill has moved to the floor today.
Mr. Chairman, I support the bill's authorization of a U.S.
contribution to the International Development Association, IDA, the
part of the World Bank that helps the world's poorest countries through
loans and grants to boost economic growth, to reduce inequality, and to
improve the standard of living across the world.
The IDA provides assistance for basic healthcare, primary education,
clean water and sanitation, and infrastructure.
I also support the idea that the bill would reestablish the U.S.'
engagement on global economic cooperation. When this bill came up in
the Financial Services Committee markup, as has been pointed out, I,
along with many of my colleagues, expressed concerns over the bill
making a U.S. contribution contingent on President Trump's
determination that the World Bank is implementing these important
reforms.
Our support for the bill was based on the understanding that those
concerns would be addressed. So we supported
[[Page H446]]
the bill in good faith, hoping that, in fact, those issues would be
addressed.
It has been pointed out that no Democratic amendments were offered in
committee. We took on faith that those issues would be addressed.
Ms. Moore, a member of the committee on the Democratic side and a
leader on this issue, offered an amendment, which the majority rejected
in the Rules Committee and did not allow this House to vote on in order
to--what we would say would be--improve the legislation. The amendment
was not even made in order.
We support good governance and accountability, but those goals ought
to be advanced on their own merits. Allowing President Trump to make
the determination to withhold money from these countries based on his
interpretation as to whether they have met his standard was a bridge
too far for many of us.
The nature of the reforms outlined in the bill give some pause when
we consider the recent actions and the recent words. It is impossible
for any of us to, first of all, erase the hateful comments made by the
President of the United States in reference to countries such as those
that benefit from the work of the IDA.
So setting aside for a moment the concerns that members of the
committee addressed--and this happens from time to time in committee,
let's not pretend that it doesn't, where there are concerns that we
decide we will address as the bill goes forward. Very often those are
worked out. When they are not, we are not going to be put in the
position as members of the committee of having to say: Well, that never
happened.
It did happen.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Culberson). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional
1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I understand we may come to different
conclusions ultimately on how the bill comes to the floor, and Members
ought to feel free to vote their conscience, but it is not the case
that we did not express those concerns with the hope that they would be
addressed before the legislation moved to the floor.
Nobody saw it as a perfect bill, unless, of course, those individuals
were not listening to the issues being raised by Democratic Members
during the debate in committee.
Mr. Chairman, I will end with this: when the President of the United
States, just in recent days, uses vulgar and hateful terms to depict
entire populations, many of whom live in countries that are the
principal beneficiaries and people who themselves are the principal
beneficiaries of this work, I have a very difficult time granting
authority to that same administration to make a determination as to
whether those countries are worthy of the help that the United States
would offer.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds again to say
it is an interesting narrative being told by the minority, but they
offered no amendments, voted for the bill 60-0. We have heard nothing
for 6 months until last Friday, the first time they decided to
articulate a specific concern about a bill they had already supported.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Hill), the majority whip of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I thank our chairman of the full committee
and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Barr from Kentucky, for
bringing this bill, H.R. 3326, to the floor today because this is
precisely what the American people want out of their government in
Washington, D.C.: accountability.
Mr. Chairman, our constituents ask us all the time: Do you monitor
the money that you send and spend around the world to further America's
interests?
There are always a lot of people just kind of looking around. And how
do we verify that?
Well, Mr. Chairman, here is an opportunity to verify that. This
important piece of legislation would require the World Bank to
implement real incentives, particularly through staff evaluation
standards, that prioritize antipoverty results and capable project
management over just the volume of loans they produce. It is that
classic management expertise, quality over quantity.
Of course we want poverty eradicated. The taxpayers of this country
wouldn't vote for us to approve spending like this if it wasn't done
right to further America's interests around the world and to alleviate
poverty around the world.
If the World Bank is serious about that, then it would defend the
poorest's freedoms more vigorously. In other words, Mr. Chairman, no
reforms like we propose, then poverty is not eradicated; the poor are
not helped.
So H.R. 3326 insists on greater efforts by the World Bank to fight
corruption in its projects. Just because the World Bank may have to
work in corrupt environments does not mean it needs to add to the graft
by pouring money in it for the taking. No one is for that. That is why
the vote was 60-0.
That is why the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) was so
supportive of this in our subcommittee. It withholds appropriations
until the World Bank raises the quality of its work, raises the quality
of its forensic audits, which are designed to unmask the systemic
corruption we find in the Third World, inadvertently or advertently
supported by the efforts of the World Bank.
We are tired of it. That is why, on a bipartisanship basis, we
support the foreign policy goals contained in H.R. 3326.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, Mr. Barr, for his thoughtful work to
implement this. These are needed changes. These are bipartisanship
changes. These improve transparency, end corruption, better spend our
taxpayer resources, and demand accountability of the World Bank, which
is notoriously unaccountable. I thank Mr. Barr and I thank Mr.
Hensarling for their efforts.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Kihuen), a member of the Financial
Services Committee.
Mr. KIHUEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to briefly speak about H.R. 3326,
the World Bank Accountability Act, which the House is voting on this
afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, last summer, I joined my Democratic and Republican
colleagues in supporting H.R. 3326 in the Financial Services Committee
to authorize the United States to participate in replenishing the
International Development Association, the IDA.
However, Democrats made it clear during consideration of this bill in
committee that our support depended on changes to certain provisions.
Specifically, we believe that prohibitions in the bill put the U.S.
funding at risk and make it too easy for the administration to cut off
funding for vulnerable nations.
Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that my Republican colleagues have
chosen not to uphold our agreement and address these concerns. Given
the recent events and remarks by President Trump degrading developing
nations and the people who live in them, we should be concerned about
giving the administration this power.
It is critical that Congress provide moral leadership and demonstrate
to the world that the United States will not ignore or punish countries
that are struggling with poverty or conflict. We must send a strong
signal that the United States Congress respects people of all
backgrounds and nationalities.
Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
In closing, let me say that Democrats did view this legislation as an
important marker of international engagement from our committee, which
has not in recent times demonstrated a great deal of interest in global
economic leadership. We viewed this measure as an opportunity to
reinforce the importance of global economic cooperation. Given that, it
seemed to us a mistake to then reject the possibility of cooperation
with our own Republican colleagues. So we supported the bill for that
reason as well, and I regret we couldn't come to an accommodation.
{time} 1545
On another matter, let me also say that I won't question the
sincerity of my Republican colleagues' commitment to reforming the
World Bank, but
[[Page H447]]
I do wonder why, if these reforms are as pressing and as urgent and as
critical as they say, why did they take so long?
Chairman Hensarling has been at the helm of our committee for over 5
years, and, during that time, the Obama administration requested
legislation to authorize U.S. participation in three other
replenishments, including the previous IDA-17. But the committee
refused to act on any of these requests, not only shirking its
oversight responsibility, but also missing a number of opportunities to
press for reforms which presumably were as urgent then as they are now.
In fact, in November of 2014, near the end of the 113th Congress, I
wrote to Chairman Hensarling urging him to turn his attention to the
three pending authorization requests before Congress adjourned. I made
a number of arguments in support of the multilateral development banks,
the MDBs, which apparently did not persuade the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I include that letter in the Record.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC, November 19, 2014.
Hon. Jeb Hensarling,
Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hensarling: I write to urge you to turn your
attention before Congress adjourns to the Administration's
requests for authorizations for U.S. participation in the
replenishments of three concessional windows at the
multilateral development banks (MDBs)--namely, the World
Bank's International Development Association (IDA-17), the
Asian Development Fund (AsDF-11), and the African Development
Fund (AfDF-13).
As you know, these concessional facilities provide grants
and low-cost development financing to the world's poorest
countries. They support projects that combat hunger and
poverty while promoting private-sector growth and global
stability. Well-designed multilateral aid programs help
create more equitable societies and more stable democracies.
It is also crucial to U.S. interests that developing nations
continue to grow. Exports have been the most rapidly growing
share of our economy, and exports to developing countries
have been an important part of that.
America is also fighting a war on terrorism, and while the
forces that give rise to terrorism are complex, poverty and
despair provide a fertile feeding ground. Moreover, U.S.
contributions to the development banks also provide
tremendous value for the money. Every dollar we commit is
leveraged many times over by contributions from other donor
nations, as well as from the internal resources of the
institutions themselves.
Today, we have another very important, and potentially far-
reaching, reason why the U.S. should promptly meet its
commitments to the MDBs. The last few years have
unfortunately seen a weakening of the commitment to
multilateralism by the United States, which has led to
widespread doubt about U.S. leadership on global economic
governance.
In response, a number of developing countries, led by
China, have begun to act independently, with initiatives
viewed as the first serious, coordinated effort to reshape
the global financial architecture and challenge western
dominance in the world economy.
Last month, China announced an agreement with 21 other
developing countries to create a multilateral development
bank called the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB),
which will focus on financing infrastructure development
projects in the Asia-Pacific region. A clear rival to the
Asian Development Bank, the AIIB will be led by China, its
largest shareholder, and headquartered in Beijing.
Separately, in July, the so-called BRICS nations (Brazil,
Russia, India, China and South Africa) announced plans to
launch an international development bank of their own, which
they hope will rival the strength and influence of the World
Bank. The ``New Development Bank,'' as it is called, will be
headquartered in Shanghai and focus on infrastructure
investment throughout the developing world.
Development experts agree that global infrastructure needs
in developing countries is tremendous, and there are many who
welcome the contribution that the new development banks can
make in helping to build sustainable economic infrastructure
both in Asia and elsewhere. But these new institutions also
reflect frustration by the world's major emerging economies
with the slow pace of governance reforms at the Bretton Woods
institutions, especially the IMF. In fact, the now-stalled
agreement to realign the quota shares at the IMF, negotiated
by the Bush Administration, was a critical effort to preserve
its legitimacy and keep emerging economies firmly anchored in
the multilateral system that the U.S. helped design.
U.S. inaction in meeting its commitments to the MDBs, as
well as its refusal to ratify IMF governance reforms, is what
led, in large part, to the creation of these new institutions
that will increasingly pose a challenge to the global
financial order created by western powers after World War II.
We should be mindful that a world in which countries such as
China and Russia are acting outside of the established
international financial institutions, or other global bodies,
is one that could drift beyond our control. Moreover, it
remains to be seen what values these new rising powers will
articulate and promote in their vision of a new global
economy.
I believe this makes U.S. leadership at the multilateral
development institutions today more important than ever. They
are directed at some of the most central challenges faced by
the U.S.--strategic, economic, political and moral--and, in
many ways, they are often our most effective means for
responding to those challenges.
I strongly urge you to take prompt action to affirm U.S.
support for, and U.S. leadership at, these institutions,
which have served both U.S. interests and the global public
good for so many years.
Sincerely,
Maxine Waters,
Ranking Member.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Nevertheless, here we are, at a
historic moment when U.S. credibility on the global stage is in serious
question.
We have the option of choosing to lead and show the community of
nations that the hateful words of the President will not be followed by
misguided and enabling actions by Congress.
Today, I speak on behalf of the world's poorest countries and their
people. Today, I stand with Africa, and I urge my colleagues to oppose
this legislation and its misguided, cynical approach to
multilateralism.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation as a
signal to the world that Trump doctrine is not the American doctrine or
a broader sign of American unreliability and indifference.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to tell you what is being
said about us from some of these countries and around the world.
From Haiti, Trump comments saying that they were ``based on
stereotypes.''
``In the spirit of the people of Haiti, we feel in the statements, if
they were made, the President was either misinformed or miseducated
about Haiti and its people.''
From Laurent Lamothe, the former Haitian Prime Minister: ``It shows a
lack of respect,'' he says, ``and ignorance never seen before in the
recent history of the U.S. by any President.''
Let's see what Jessie Duarte, Deputy Secretary General of the African
National Congress, has to say. He said, ``Ours is not a s----hole
country, neither is Haiti or any other country in distress.''
From the Government of El Salvador: ``We have addressed a note of
protest to the Government of the United States highlighting in this
document also the high value of Salvadorans.''
From Salvador Sanchez, President of El Salvador:
The statement by the President of the United States hits
the dignity of the Salvadoran people. El Salvador demands
within the framework of the principles governing relations
among states respect for the dignity of their noble and
courageous people.
Hugo Martinez, El Salvador's Foreign Minister, said:
``It's always been a foreign policy priority of our government to
fight for the respect and dignity of our countrymen independent of the
immigration status.
``Our countrymen are hardworking people who are always contributing
to the countries where they are living and, of course, also to our
country.''
And according to the State Department, Senegal also summoned the U.S.
Ambassador for an explanation. And so Macky Sall, President of Senegal,
said: ``I am shocked by the words of President Trump on Haiti and
Africa. I reject them and condemn them vigorously. Africa and the Black
race deserves the respect and consideration of all.''
And then there is John Mahama, former President of Ghana. He said:
``Africans and Haitians come from s----hole countries? Isn't Trump
demonstrating that he is nothing but a racist and pursuing a policy of
`Make America White Again'? I congratulate Botswana for showing the
way. Our AU Presidents must respond strongly to this insult.''
I could go on and on about comments that are coming from our friends
and
[[Page H448]]
our allies. Some of them may be poor countries but who have had respect
for us in the past and who have stood with us in times of adversity.
I absolutely know that this country has demonstrated, time and time
again, that we are humanitarians, that we understand the importance of
giving support to the poorest countries in this world, and they
appreciate us so much. They honor us, they have respected us, and they
have done everything to show that they will stand with us when they
need us to do that.
And here we are at a time when we are willing to put them at risk
with a piece of legislation where we have some Members on the opposite
side of the aisle who think they know better than the World Bank, who
think they know better than all of the Members, Democrats and
Republicans, who have worked together for years in our support of the
World Bank; in our support of giving support to the 77 poorest
countries in the world; and giving our support to the 450 million
people, many of them who are living in abject poverty, many of them who
don't know where the next meal is going to come from, and many of them
whose lives are at risk every day.
How can we, the richest country in the world, turn our nose up at
them, talk about somehow they are not credible, talk about somehow they
are all corrupt? I reject it, and I ask the Members of this Congress to
vote ``no'' on this misplaced, misguided piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members that remarks in
debate may not engage in personalities toward the President, including
by repeating remarks carried elsewhere that would be improper if spoken
in the Member's own words.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 4\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First, Mr. Chairman, let me get the whole process debate out of the
way. Anybody who is watching this debate has got to be scratching their
head at the proposition that every single one of my Democratic
colleagues who come to the floor to denounce H.R. 3326 have already
voted for it. They voted for it 60-0 in committee.
Mr. Chairman, do you know how many amendments they offered in that
markup, their opportunity to refine the legislation, their opportunity
to improve the legislation, their opportunity to put their imprimatur
on the legislation? Do you know how many amendments they offered? Zero.
Zero amendments were offered by the minority who now claim that somehow
they were cut out of the process.
For 6 months, we have been waiting, waiting to bring this bill,
waiting to hear about these improvements, and only three legislative
days ago did, finally, the Democrats deign to offer any new improvement
to this bill.
So I think, Mr. Chairman, she doth protest too much. And now what I
don't understand, Mr. Chairman, is how my Democratic colleagues can
defend some of these rogue regimes and some of the activities of the
World Bank.
Dr. Jean Ensminger, Edie and Lew Wasserman professor of social
science at Caltech, testified that there is corruption throughout World
Bank projects in remote areas of Kenya near the Somali border.
She said: ``As I dug more deeply, it became apparent that corruption
had been entrenched in the project since 2000.'' And we are talking
about the poorest of the poor.
She goes on to say:
As the board was about to renew the project for 5 years,
finally, the internal investigation showed that 62 percent of
the transactions were fraudulent.
Except my friends on the other side of the aisle: It doesn't matter.
Don't worry about the fraud. Just send them U.S. taxpayer money. It
doesn't matter that the poor aren't actually helped. Just send them
money because it makes us feel good.
Sasha Chavkin from the International Consortium of Investigative
Journalists testified--and I alluded to this earlier about the forced
displacement of the poorest of the poor caused by projects financed by
the World Bank.
He went on to testify: ``We found, instead, that the bank repeatedly
funded governments that not only failed to adequately resettle
communities, but, in some cases, were accused of human rights abuses
such as rape, murder, and violent evictions associated with bank
projects. We found in several cases that the World Bank continued to
bankroll these borrowers even after evidence of these abuses came to
light.''
We have a bill to reform that, to make sure the poor are actually
helped, to ensure that instead of taxpayer money going to rape, murder,
and violent evictions, that it actually goes to help the poor. And why
my Democratic colleagues who were once for it are now against it is
beyond me.
We certainly know about the infamous World Bank project, road
project, in western Uganda where it was associated with an increase in
sexual exploitation of young girls. Teenage girls were being sexually
harassed on the way to school. Many were sexually exploited or wagged
by project workers, and once this became known, the World Bank denied
it.
So we have the simple bill to say that the U.S. taxpayer will demand
accountability. We will demand reforms. People should be aghast at how
this money has been spent at the World Bank. It is not how much money
you spend. It is how you spend the money. And if we want reforms, we
are going to have some accountability, something that my friends on the
other side of the aisle used to support, and they should be ashamed
that they are not supporting it today.
We must all support H.R. 3326. I very much commend the gentleman from
Kentucky for bringing this valuable piece of legislation to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services printed
in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 3326
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``World Bank Accountability
Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS UNTIL CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE
MET.
(a) Institutional Reforms.--
(1) In general.--With respect to each of fiscal years 2018
through 2023, in addition to any amounts withheld from
disbursement under subsection (b), 15 percent of the amounts
provided in appropriations Acts for the International
Development Association for the fiscal year--
(A) shall be withheld from disbursement until the
conditions of paragraph (2) or (3) are satisfied; and
(B)(i) shall be disbursed after the conditions of paragraph
(2) are satisfied; and
(ii) may be disbursed after the conditions of paragraph (3)
are satisfied
(2) Initial conditions.--The conditions of this paragraph
are satisfied with respect to the amounts provided in
appropriations Acts for a fiscal year if, in the fiscal year,
the Secretary of the Treasury reports to the appropriate
congressional committees that the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development--
(A) is implementing institutional incentives, including
through formal staff evaluation criteria, that prioritize
poverty reduction, development outcomes, and capable project
management over the volume of the Bank's lending and
grantmaking;
(B) is taking steps to address the management failures
described in Inspection Panel Investigation Report 106710-UG,
and to prevent their recurrence in countries that are
eligible for World Bank support; and
(C) is taking measures to strengthen its management of
trust funds, with the goal of increasing the accountability
of the trust funds for poverty reduction and development
outcomes.
(3) Subsequent conditions.--The conditions of this
paragraph are satisfied if the Secretary of the Treasury
reports to the appropriate congressional committees, in each
of the 3 fiscal years most recently preceding the fiscal year
in which the report is made, that the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development has instituted the measures
described in paragraph (2) of this subsection and the
measures described in subsection (b)(2).
[[Page H449]]
(b) Governance and Anticorruption Reforms.--
(1) In general.--With respect to each of fiscal years 2018
through 2023, in addition to any amounts withheld from
disbursement under subsection (a), 15 percent of the amounts
provided in appropriations Acts for the International
Development Association for the fiscal year--
(A) shall be withheld from disbursement until the
conditions of paragraph (2) or (3) are satisfied; and
(B)(i) shall be disbursed after the conditions of paragraph
(2) are satisfied; and
(ii) may be disbursed after the conditions of paragraph (3)
are satisfied
(2) Initial conditions.--The conditions of this paragraph
are satisfied with respect to the amounts provided in
appropriations Acts for a fiscal year if, in the fiscal year,
the Secretary of the Treasury reports to the appropriate
congressional committees that the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development--
(A) is emphasizing in appropriate operational policies,
directives, and country strategies its support for secure
property rights, due process of law, and economic freedom as
essential conditions for sustained poverty reduction in World
Bank borrowing countries;
(B)(i) in the preceding fiscal year, has not approved any
loans or grants assistance by the Bank to a country
designated by the United States as a state sponsor of
terrorism; and
(ii) is strengthening the ability of Bank-funded projects
to undermine violent extremism;
(C) is taking steps to conduct forensic audits of projects
receiving assistance from the Bank, increase the number of
the forensic audits, and strengthen the capacity of the
Bank's Integrity Vice Presidency, and that not less than 50
percent of the forensic audits initiated by the Bank in each
fiscal year are of projects randomly selected from among
International Development Association borrowing countries;
and
(D) is taking measures to detect and minimize corruption in
all World Bank projects involving development policy lending.
(3) Subsequent conditions.--The conditions of this
paragraph are satisfied if the Secretary of the Treasury
reports to the appropriate congressional committees, in each
of the 3 fiscal years most recently preceding the fiscal year
in which the report is made that the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development has instituted the measures
described in paragraph (2) of this subsection and the
measures described in subsection (a)(2).
(c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means the Committees on Financial Services and on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Committees on Foreign Relations and on Appropriations of the
Senate.
SEC. 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
The Chairman of the National Advisory Council on
International Monetary and Financial Policies shall include
in the report required by section 1701 of the International
Financial Institutions Act for each of fiscal years 2018
through 2023 a detailed description of the actions undertaken
by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
in the fiscal year covered by the report to institute the
measures described in subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2) of
section 2 of this Act.
SEC. 4. OPPOSITION TO WORLD BANK ASSISTANCE FOR GOVERNMENT
THAT FAILS TO IMPLEMENT OR ENFORCE MEASURES
REQUIRED UNDER AN APPLICABLE UNITED NATIONS
SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION.
The Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. 286 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 73. OPPOSITION TO ASSISTANCE FOR GOVERNMENT THAT FAILS
TO IMPLEMENT OR ENFORCE MEASURES REQUIRED UNDER
AN APPLICABLE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION.
``The Secretary of the Treasury should instruct the United
States Executive Director at the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development to use the voice and vote of
the United States to oppose the provision of assistance to
the government of a borrowing country of the International
Development Association if the President of the United States
determines that the government has knowingly failed to
implement or enforce sanctions required under an applicable
United Nations Security Council resolution (as defined in
section 3 of the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement
Act of 2016 (Public Law 114-122; 22 U.S.C. 9202)) that is in
effect.''.
SEC. 5. EIGHTEENTH REPLENISHMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION; REDUCTION FROM IDA-17
AUTHORIZED LEVEL.
The International Development Association Act (22 U.S.C.
284 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 30. EIGHTEENTH REPLENISHMENT.
``(a) Contribution Authority.--The United States Governor
of the International Development Association may contribute
on behalf of the United States $3,291,030,000 to the
eighteenth replenishment of the resources of the Association,
subject to obtaining the necessary appropriations.
``(b) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations.--In
order to pay for the contribution provided for in subsection
(a), there are authorized to be appropriated, without fiscal
year limitation, $3,291,030,000 for payment by the Secretary
of the Treasury.''.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A
of House Report 115-518. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Norman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part A of House Report 115-518.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 6, line 2, after ``economic freedom'' insert ``,
including reduction of government barriers to
entrepreneurship,''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 693, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support my amendment to
H.R. 3326, the World Bank Accountability Act. I also want to thank the
chairman of the full committee and Andy Barr, who is the subcommittee
chairman, for introducing this legislation and working with me on this
amendment.
The purpose of the underlying bill is simple: to ensure that the
World Bank is effective in supporting projects abroad that work and
actually reduce poverty. One aspect of the bill requires that the U.S.
may withhold part of its funding from the World Bank unless the
Treasury Department reports that the World Bank is emphasizing proven
antipoverty solutions such as secure property rights, due process under
the law, and economic freedom.
My amendment would make a small and positive change to the bill which
clarifies that the World Bank should also focus on reducing government
barriers to entrepreneurship in addition to the other requirements.
{time} 1600
This simple modification is important for a couple of reasons:
First, multiple studies have found that entrepreneurship is an
essential part of reducing poverty abroad because it gives people the
ability to use their skills and God-given talents to foster innovation
and create jobs in their individual communities. Foreign governments
often create barriers to entrepreneurship through excessive fees,
burdensome licensing requirements, and lengthy permitting processes.
Second, this modification is consistent with United States foreign
policy, which, in part, is to promote market solutions to international
poverty. This will ensure that individuals will have the capability to
pull themselves out of poverty without excessive barriers put up by
their government, ultimately improve the efficiency of United States
development assistance and improve the economic situation in
impoverished nations.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I
appreciate the committee's willingness to work with me on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
although I am not opposed to the amendment.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition
to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Palmer). Is the gentlewoman opposed to the
amendment?
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Yes, I am opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition
to the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Norman).
While the amendment speaks to reducing government barriers to
entrepreneurship, the real-world impact of adopting this amendment
would be to enlist the World Bank in the business
[[Page H450]]
of really what they are going for, diminishing labor standards.
The World Bank's prior ``doing business'' report is a prime example
of why we must reject this amendment. The World Bank should be
encouraging sustainable and inclusive growth, not policies that
diminish workers' rights. So I would urge all Members to oppose this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Barr).
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina for
his very thoughtful amendment. His amendment addresses an issue dear to
our heart, and that is economic freedom. By making the bill even more
explicit in its support for entrepreneurship, his contribution makes a
good piece of legislation better. Still, it is important to remember
that the poor, wherever they may be in the world, can succeed if their
government lets them, and that is a principle we should all
wholeheartedly support. I hope the World Bank will subscribe to it as
well.
I would just say one other thing about the debate that has transpired
here today. This is hardworking American taxpayers' generosity. It is
their charity. It is the American taxpayers trying to help people who
live in impoverished countries.
It is unfair to hardworking taxpayers and it dishonors the generosity
of the American people to not hold the World Bank accountable.
I applaud the gentleman, Mr. Norman, for his amendment, which will
unleash entrepreneurship in these lesser developed countries.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Connolly
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part A of House Report 115-518.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 7, line 22, insert ``, to institute the measures
described in section 203 of the William Wilberforce
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (8
U.S.C. 1375c), and to ensure that persons to whom a G-5 visa
(as defined in such section 203) has been issued and who are
employed by a diplomat or staff of the Bank are informed of
their rights and protections under such section 203'' before
the period.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 693, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an anti-human trafficking
amendment to the World Bank Accountability Act.
The chairman of the National Advisory Council on International
Monetary and Financial Policies is already required by law to submit to
the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, and the
President of the United States an annual report on the effectiveness
and operations of international financial institutions as well as other
goals for development assistance and financing already specified by
Congress.
The base text of the World Bank Accountability Act already includes
several additions to the chairman's annual report. This amendment would
make one addition to that report. The amendment would require the
chairman to report on the detailed actions undertaken by the World Bank
to institute certain protections for G-5 nonimmigrant visa holders and
inform these individuals of the rights afforded to them by the William
Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.
That legislation was sponsored by my good friend and former chairman of
the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Howard Berman.
G-5 nonimmigrant visas are reserved for foreign domestic employees of
diplomats and international organizations, such as the World Bank.
Prior to the enactment of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act, these foreign domestic employees had
very few protections.
However, the bill enacted several important reforms on how we prevent
abuse and trafficking of foreign domestic employees in the United
States on G-5 nonimmigrant visas.
The law mandated that all such visa holders have an employer-employee
contract that includes, inter alia:
One, an agreement by the employer to abide by all Federal, State, and
local laws;
Two, information on the frequency and form of payment, work duties,
weekly work hours, holidays, sick days, and vacation days; and
Three, have an agreement by the employer not to withhold the
passport, employment contract, or other personal property and documents
of the employee.
Among other things, the law also permits these foreign domestic
employees to remain legally and work in the United States while seeking
legal redress against their employers, as required.
As a Representative for Northern Virginia, I count among the
residents of my district many of the hardworking and dedicated
employees of the World Bank who work in offices throughout the D.C.
metropolitan area. As a result, I also represent the foreign domestic
employees of those who work in the World Bank and such institutions.
Unfortunately, sometimes, some of these individuals have been subject
to abuse by their employers.
Since 2010, there have been at least five Federal civil trafficking
cases in the United States involving the World Bank, and a majority of
those cases were filed in the Eastern District of Virginia. All of
these cases resulted in either a settlement, a default judgment for the
plaintiff, or a guilty plea--all of them.
According to the GAO report on household workers for foreign
diplomats, ``The people who come to the United States on G-5 visas are
among the most vulnerable who enter our borders legally. They are often
poor, uneducated, and unfamiliar with their rights under United States
law. If they find themselves in an abusive situation, their ability to
hold their employers accountable can be limited, particularly if their
employers hold full diplomatic immunity and inviolability.''
According to a 2017 survey, 85 percent of domestic worker trafficking
survivors report having pay withheld or being paid well below minimum
wage, in violation of our own domestic laws. Seventy-eight percent have
had employers threaten to report them for deportation if they
complained. Sixty-two percent report having their passports or other
identification documents taken away or withheld illegally by their
employers.
We must empower all individuals who find themselves victims of abuse
or human trafficking and provide them with a way out. Too often their
plight is obscured by their vulnerability and their susceptibility to
these kinds of threats.
I hope this amendment helps shed more light on one corner of this
problem and offers victims currently suffering under an abusive
employer a way out of the shadows. This is a matter of human decency,
human freedom, and a reaffirmation of human autonomy.
Mr. Chairman, I urge its adoption. I thank the chairman and his staff
and the ranking member and her staff for their cooperation fashioning
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
although I am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Kentucky is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his
efforts, and I am willing to accept his amendment.
The language he proposes would ensure that the Treasury keeps
Congress updated on the World Bank's efforts to ensure that certain
visa holders at the World Bank are aware of the provisions of current
law.
[[Page H451]]
This addition to the bill is unobjectionable. I am pleased to support
it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Barr
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part A of House Report 115-518.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, line 13, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The
Secretary''.
Page 8, line 13, strike ``should'' and insert ``shall''.
Page 8, line 16, insert ``financial'' before ``assist-''.
Page 8, line 17, after ``ance'' insert ``, other than
assistance to support basic human needs,''.
Page 8, line 24, strike the close quotation marks and the
period that follows.
Page 8, after line 24, insert the following:
``(b) Waiver.--The President may waive subsection (a) for
not more than 180 days at a time with respect to a foreign
government if the President reports to the Congress that--
``(1) the failure described in subsection (a) by the
foreign government is due exclusively to a lack of capacity
of the foreign government;
``(2) the foreign government is taking effective steps to
prevent the failure from recurring; or
``(3) the waiver is vital to the national security
interests of the United States.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 693, the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a straightforward amendment
that would simply make this bill's language more consistent with
legislation the House has already passed with an overwhelming
bipartisan majority.
As reported, H.R. 3326 calls on the Treasury Department to oppose
World Bank assistance to IDA countries that knowingly fail to enforce
U.N. Security Council sanctions against North Korea.
As the U.N. Panel of Experts has concluded, lax enforcement,
including in developing countries eligible for IDA support, has
significantly undermined the effectiveness of U.N. sanctions against
the Kim regime.
All my amendment does is change the word ``should'' to ``shall,''
making U.S. opposition to World Bank assistance for those countries
mandatory. At the same time, the amendment adds Presidential waiver
authority so that the administration can exempt countries that may be
facing limits to their government capacity or which are making an
effort to correct their enforcement failures. There is also a national
interest waiver included in this provision.
The Financial Services Committee has already passed this stronger
mandatory provision in the Otto Warmbier North Korea Nuclear Sanctions
Act, which I am proud to have sponsored along with my subcommittee
ranking member, Ms. Moore from Wisconsin. Ms. Moore's input was
important to making this provision both tough and flexible enough to
incentivize foreign countries to work harder on sanctions enforcement.
Our committee passed the Otto Warmbier sanctions bill unanimously,
and it passed the full House in October by a vote of 415-2. Again, this
is a minor change to align this bill's language with a policy that the
House has already endorsed on a bipartisan basis.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues' support.
Before I conclude, I do want to just make a general comment about the
wisdom of this legislation and the approach to enforce accountability
on the World Bank. We heard some of the arguments from our friends on
the other side of the aisle--our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle. I would just say, on a bipartisan basis, we are the guardians
and the custodians of the American taxpayers' charity. We are the
guardians of their hard-earned income that they pay in the form of
taxes to their government, and they ask us to be wise stewards of those
tax dollars.
These taxpayers work hard to pay their taxes. So when that money
comes to Washington, they expect when we are fighting poverty in Third
World countries with their tax dollars that we make it work because the
American people--and we all agree here--want to fight poverty in these
Third World countries.
We want to make sure that these Third World countries are not either
knowingly or unknowingly supporting circumventing these sanctions
against North Korea.
We want to make sure that they are promoting economic freedom and
actually helping people rise out of poverty and achieve their God-given
potential in these countries that need our humanitarian assistance.
So for goodness' sake, let's support accountability at the World Bank
so that we don't have rape, murder, and violent evictions associated
with World Bank projects, which is what everybody knows the testimony
has been in our oversight.
This is not about turning our backs on the poor. It is about standing
up for the poor. It is about making sure that the money that our
taxpayers are giving to the World Bank is actually helping alleviate
poverty and not exacerbating the problems in these poor countries.
{time} 1615
If the Bank can't undertake the reforms in this bill--again, reforms
that the minority supported--then, by definition, the Bank's money is
not benefiting the poor. If it is not benefiting the poor, how could
withholding a portion of it be punishing the poor?
For goodness' sake, let's honor the charity of the American
taxpayers. Let's not dishonor it. Let's honor it by actually making
reforms to the World Bank so that it can fulfill its important mission
and not undermine its important antipoverty mission.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hensarling), the distinguished chairman of the full committee.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, not only do I want to thank him for his leadership in
providing accountability to the World Bank to ensure that the poorest
of the poor are truly helped and that the hardworking, beleaguered
taxpayer has his funds respected, but I also want to thank him for this
amendment and his previous work to ensure that sanctions on one of the
most dangerous regimes on the face of the planet, North Korea, are
actually effective. We know the threat that North Korea presents to all
of our constituents and our country.
So I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his leadership, and I urge
the adoption of his amendment.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition
to the amendment, though I do not intend to oppose it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized
for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment,
offered by the gentleman from Kentucky, Representative Barr, would make
changes to section 4 of the underlying bill dealing with opposing World
Bank assistance for governments that fail to enforce U.N. Security
Council sanctions against North Korea.
These changes are welcome and would bring this section of the bill in
line with a provision that was adopted on a bipartisan basis in the
Financial Services Committee as part of our commitment in the Otto
Warmbier North Korea Nuclear Sanctions Act.
Just as the bipartisan measure that was passed through our committee
included a clearly defined waiver authority, the amendment offered by
Representative Barr would add, in this same waiver, provisions to the
underlying bill. In doing so, the amendment not only makes section 4 of
the bill consistent with the approach used in
[[Page H452]]
other contexts, but, more importantly, it ensures that we allow the
President to waive the withholding of assistance for countries that
fall short in applying sanctions on North Korea when such failure is
due exclusively to a lack of capacity of the foreign government and the
foreign government is taking effective steps to prevent the failure
from recurring.
While I do not believe the underlying bill should become law in its
current form, I do believe we should take a consistent and thoughtful
approach to cutting off World Bank assistance to the poorest countries
that are unable to fulfill their U.N. Security Council obligations.
This amendment would address this concern.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for giving credit to Ms. Moore
for her work and her assistance with the work that was being done to
deny North Korea any kind of assistance from any of our allies, as I
understand it. This is not something that is done by the Republicans or
the Democrats. This is truly bipartisan. We all feel the same way about
North Korea, and we all feel that the sanctions should be honored. We
all feel that no country, in particular those countries that we are
supporting, in any way should do anything to give support to North
Korea.
In saying that, let me also point out that we don't come to this
floor with any kind of empty rhetoric, talking about all of those
countries are corrupt and somehow all of these countries in Africa and
other places that are very poor are somehow disregarding the fact that
the United States is being of assistance to them. Most of them know
that their lives oftentimes depend on our generosity. They love us and
support us. They want to emulate us.
They get a little bit confused when we have people who charge them
with being corrupt and irresponsible and noncaring and not having an
appreciation for what the citizens of the United States are doing for
them. That is not the kind of rhetoric that we need in order to enhance
our posture or our image with our constituents and have them believe
that we are saving them from these poor countries who are getting
taxpayer money and don't care about them. That is not true.
I cringe when I hear that kind of rhetoric on the floor of Congress.
I cringe when I hear us using our position, our influence, to send a
message that somehow we don't trust, we don't believe, we don't honor,
and we don't respect many of those very, very poor countries. We are
talking about 77 of the poorest countries in the world.
You will see ads on television, from time to time, of nonprofit
organizations that are trying to save the lives of little children who
are dying from malnutrition. You see them every night, and they tell
you: Send $21; send some money to this organization so we can save
these children who are dying because they don't have clean drinking
water, who are dying because they are victims of malaria, who are dying
because they don't have any healthcare whatsoever, living practically
outdoors. When we see these ads, many people are responding, joining in
with their government to show our humanitarianism and helping the least
of these.
I want us to take credit, but I want us be respectful. I want us not
to join in calling names. I want us to say to the President of the
United States: ``Don't keep doing this.'' I want to say to the Members
on the opposite side of the aisle: ``You are better than this, and you
don't need this for your reelection. You don't need this to send a
message to your citizens that you are saving them from poor, corrupt
countries.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Holding) having assumed the chair, Mr. Palmer, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3326) to
increase accountability, combat corruption, and strengthen management
effectiveness at the World Bank, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________