[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.

                          ____________________