World Bank Accountability Act of 2017

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.

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

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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from New York an additional 30 seconds.

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. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the vice ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Kihuen), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Yes, I am opposed to the amendment.

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

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. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, though I do not intend to oppose it.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, once again, Congress finds itself rushing to try to pass legislation to keep the government open; ensure that our youngest, most vulnerable Americans have access to health insurance; and protect young, aspiring Americans from being deported from the only country they have known as home. Yet here we are debating other things with the clock running out in the eleventh hour--issues that, no doubt, have a few people here and there who care about them, but zero people have called my office on, Mr. Speaker.

My constituents are demanding that we address access to the childhood healthcare insurance program and demanding that we act on the DREAMers with the deadline approaching and 100-plus DREAMers every day losing their status.

It sounds like, from all we are hearing, that the House is going to consider yet another short-term spending bill to maybe keep the government running for another 4 weeks or 6 weeks. It is actually the fourth short-term spending bill for this year, not allowing the Department of Defense to plan to keep our country safe and not allowing any of the departments across the Federal Government to make any of the investments they need or have any degree of certainty that contractors will be paid.

It is no way to govern, Mr. Speaker. Part of the reason that we are left doing this is we are using our precious floor time on all of these other issues like the ones before us today.

It is not that these issues don't deserve their day in the sun, and we will talk about them for the rest of the day today, apparently, but we are facing the closure of the entire Federal Government in 3 days if we don't act. We are doing the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns. This is an absurd exercise in doing some narrowly tailored special interest bills rather than addressing what we all know to be the 1,000- pound gorillas in the room.

Seniors, military veterans, and people with disabilities shouldn't have to question whether they will actually receive their benefits month to month because we don't know whether the government will remain open. In the meanwhile, Republicans, Democrats, and the White House are all trying to put forward bipartisan solutions for the hundreds of thousands of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients and DREAMers, and we could be debating that on the floor and putting together the final package now to do that by this Friday. But instead, we are discussing these bills that my constituents aren't telling me that they are sending me to Washington to pass.

A lot of my colleagues say that the deadline for DACA isn't until March, but, in reality, over 100 deferred action DREAMers every day lose their protected status as their benefits expire. Every day the Republicans fail to act, they are creating over 100 more illegal immigrants in this country. If Republicans fail to act by March, they will have created over 800,000 more people here illegally in our country.

We have about 18,000 DREAMers in Colorado able to work legally today. They have come from countries near and far in search of a better life for themselves and their families. They grew up in our schools, sports teams, cheerleaders, don't know any other country, and many of them don't speak any other language.

One DREAMer that I have gotten to know from Colorado is Anarely, whose family stayed in Colorado to help take care of their grandmother. Anarely is a triple major at Colorado State University, studying political science, ethnic studies, and international relations. She has built a life in Colorado--the only life she knows--and continues to build a bright future in the U.S. if we can give her the certainty with regard to her legal ability to work and, of course, take her place alongside other American citizens.

What makes America so great is we are a country of immigrants made up of people from all backgrounds, all quarters of the world. We embrace people from different cultures and different countries. We value the contributions based on the individual and the values of individual responsibility and hard work. That is what makes our country and our communities vibrant and our economy successful.

Mr. Speaker, a group of bipartisan House and Senate Members are working together to find a solution to protect DREAMers and improve border security. I am proud to cosponsor the USA Act, which we dropped yesterday with Mr. Hurd and Mr. Aguilar which would provide DREAMers long-term protections and improve our border security to prevent this kind of situation from happening again.

But instead of legislation that addresses long-term funding or protects aspiring Americans, here we are bringing bills to talk around the fringes about consumer protections and, of course, a bill that would chip away at reproductive health rights.

The rule we are debating today considers two pieces of legislation that are not anything to do with the expiration at the end of this week of government funding or the over 100 DREAMers who lose their status every day--the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and the World Bank Accountability Act.

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act has long been a tool to monitor the mortgage lending practices and patterns of financial institutions to ensure equal and fair access to credit. The information that lenders are required to report shows that they are meeting the housing financing needs of their communities. HMDA data is very important in fair lending assessments and helps make determinations of where to target community development resources.

Congress has made changes to HMDA as a response to legitimate concerns about the role that widespread predatory lending played in the financial

crisis. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was charged with updating how lenders report HMDA.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau adopted a standard for the new reporting requirements that took into account the burdens imposed on banks by new standards to ensure that the data is being reported to monitor fair lending practices to prevent another systemic meltdown like we had in 2008 and 2009.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau even temporarily raised the reporting threshold eliminating the need for low-volume banks to report through 2019, in order to conduct research to determine the right way to document open-ended loans. We should not codify this threshold, removing the flexibility of the agency that we in Congress set up to prevent another financial meltdown. It would literally tie their hands and prevent them from acting, even if there was a need to, to prevent a financial meltdown.

I strongly support regulatory relief for community banks and small financial institutions. This bill would actually exempt 85 percent of depository financial institutions and 48 percent of nondepository lenders.

Congress should want to encourage increased access to housing finance and combat unlawful practices that can prey on vulnerable home buyers or lead to systemic risk which leads to people coming to this town demanding another Republican taxpayer bailout.

This rule also considers debate for H.R. 3326, the World Bank Accountability Act--another issue that does not relate to the expiration of government funding at the end of the week, does not relate to the illegal aliens that the Republicans are creating every day, and does not relate to the Children's Health Insurance Program expiring.

What it does is it places a restriction on funding to the World Bank International Development Association--again, something I am not hearing from my constituents on, that they are not sending me to Washington and demanding that I take action on--and try to get them to reform to improve their management accountability and fight extremism, which I am sure is fine. It is true that, of course, they probably need to improve accountability and oversight, and Congress can have this discussion, but here we are, backs to the wall, the government is about to close, DREAMers are facing deportation, children are going without healthcare, and, yes, of course, World Bank accountability, great, let's discuss it, but can't we do it next week after we get through this?

In fact, I believe the Republicans are sending us all on vacation next week. I think most Americans wish they had 10 days off at the end of January. I don't understand this. It makes no sense. I think Congress is about to do a last-minute funding bill and then send every Member of Congress on a 10-day vacation saying: Good job, we dealt with World Bank accountability. That is what the voters want. Forget about government shutdowns, forget about Republicans creating more illegal aliens, forget about Republicans plunging our Nation deeper into debt with their tax-and-spend policies. That is where we are headed, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, we should have a debate on the best way to make reforms in the U.S. and engage the World Bank to encourage those reforms.

Again, fiddling while Rome burns, Mr. Speaker, it is a common theme over here, and the American people are seeing through it, which is why the approval rating of this institution is under 15 percent--no shock.

We can be debating World Bank accountability every day for the next year if you want. That is why people think this body is out of touch. We are just not addressing or dealing with the issues the American people sent us here to deal with: skyrocketing debt; over 12 million people who are here illegally, and yet this Congress fails to take up comprehensive immigration reform; expiration of the Children's Health Insurance Program; fixing the Affordable Care Act.

Withholding funds to the IDA has a lot of positives and negatives. We could influence them to act. Others fear it could punish people in the developing world. It could hamper their ability to fight famine. It could force the necessary reforms.

Again, fine, we will have that discussion under this rule for an hour or two and Congress will debate that. Congress will pass a bill, and we will see whether the Senate even takes it up. They often don't.

But, again, it is backs to the wall, fiddling while Rome burns, the eleventh hour, record debt, Republicans creating more illegal immigrants every day, and here we are debating accountability for different aid programs.

The 15 percent must be, like, the family members and cousins of the Republican Members. I don't know anybody who is satisfied with this Congress, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, last week, President Trump tweeted: ``The Democrats are all talk and no action. They are doing nothing to fix DACA.'' That is deeply insulting to those of us who have worked so hard for years. I was even here when the Democrats passed the DREAM Act in December of 2010.

This is the 18th time we have attempted to bring up the bipartisan bill, H.R. 3440. We are about to do it again with my colleague, Mr. Gomez. The Dream Act makes our position clear. We want immigration policies that make America safer. We want to make sure that our aspiring, de facto Americans can take their place alongside of us with the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

Unfortunately, President Trump made his position clear, as well. I am not sure which position; he changes every other day. But at times, he said he will sign whatever we do. At other times, he said:

My standard is very simple: America first, and Make America

Great Again.

That is an easy one. This bill we bring up if we defeat the previous question will absolutely make America greater. According to the conservative think tank CATO, repealing DACA would actually cost the government over $60 billion, reduce economic growth by $280 billion, and make us all poorer.

We just want to make America wealthier, make us better, and recognize the aspiring Americans and let them work hard and play by the rules and pay taxes and live the American Dream. That is an America first policy that we can all get behind.

This is the 18th attempt here to do this. But I am a Jewish American, and 18 is actually a lucky number. ``Chai'' means ``life,'' when you do the numerology. Mr. Gomez is lucky to be here for number 18. For our Jewish friends watching on C-SPAN, Mr. Speaker, they will recognize that. It is kind of like seven. I don't know if seven is a Christian lucky number or pagan or what, but I have heard seven is a lucky number, too.

But 18 means life, and this is life for the DREAMers. That is what Mr. Gomez's motion is all about: it is letting young people who have that uncertainty and don't even know if they can go to their job and work hard come March, or even come today or tomorrow for the over 100 a day whose status is expiring.

I really hope that my Republican colleagues join Mr. Gomez and me in defeating the previous question so we can bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, which would pass this body, Mr. Speaker. You and I know that. It is bipartisan, bicameral. It would help thousands of young people who are Americans in every single way--de facto Americans, aspiring Americans--except on paper.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gomez) to discuss our proposal for the 18th time: chai, or life.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, here we go. We are finding ourselves staring down self- created deadlines, and I want to be clear about that. The deadline for the expiration of the DREAMers in March and the fact that 100 are expiring every day is self-created by President Trump. It is a manufactured crisis. We, of course, could do immigration reform while not having our backs to the wall on that issue.

This shutdown of the government is a construct of this body, this House. They said that they would only fund the government through January 19. So we are facing another deadline. Again, I believe, from what I am hearing, that Congress will then create another artificial crisis sometime in February, when we are going to be facing a government shutdown again.

All in the face of record deficits and tax-and-spend Republican policies, the American people have had enough.

Hundreds of thousands of DREAMers are at risk of deportation by this administration.

Millions of children are at risk of losing their health insurance.

We are all being plunged deeper and deeper into debt, not just for ourselves, but our future generations: my kids and many of our grandkids, for those who have them.

We are facing another government shutdown of necessary, important government services, including economic drivers in areas I represent, like Rocky Mountain National Park, with over 3 million tourists a year. It would close down if the government shuts down.

Air traffic controllers. So many other important parts of our necessary infrastructure to succeed as a country faces an expiration this Friday.

Even if somehow the Republicans say, ``Okay, here is another 2 or 3 weeks of funding,'' the uncertainty that that creates--meaning they can't plan for short- to medium-term capital projects: a simple repair that might take more than 3 weeks; knocking down a wall; fixing a building; making a hire and an employee not knowing whether they are going to have a job in 3 weeks, or contractors not knowing whether they are going to be paid, and then having to reflect that in their pricing and ultimately charging the taxpayers more for the work they are doing because they don't know if the government will pay.

What kind of country are we running, Mr. Speaker?

I know we can do better, and that starts by defeating the previous question so that we can just pass the Dream Act and move on. It will pass. Sixty, seventy, or eighty percent of this body will probably vote for it. I know there are people who don't like it. Let the people's House work its will. Let us vote. That is what we are here to do, Mr. Speaker--Republicans and Democrats. Let us work our will.

We have the votes on the Dream Act and we have the votes to keep the government open, if you simply allow us to have an open process to do it. That is what this floor time should be used for today. This is precious floor time--the time that we are in session debating-- especially considering Republicans are sending Congress on a 10-day vacation at the end of this week. Let's use this floor time to do what matters.

Sure, there will be a day to discuss the finer points of World Bank policies and the finer points of the threshold for regulatory forbearance for mortgage cutoffs. Those things are fine, Mr. Speaker. Those are fine to discuss, but not while the Republicans are creating over 100 more illegal immigrants a day and they are going to create 800,000 more in just a couple of months; not when the Republicans are plunging our Nation deeper and deeper into debt with their tax-and- spend policies; not when Republicans are forcing another government shutdown, if not this week, then in 3 weeks or in 4 weeks.

Crisis to crisis to crisis, manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis, the American people count on us to be stewards of the greatest Republic that has ever been created on the face of this Earth. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, Congress is letting them down. Let's defeat the previous question and defeat this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Michigan an additional 30 seconds.

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. 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. 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. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

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.

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. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

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.

This addition to the bill is unobjectionable. I am pleased to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

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. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 693 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

This rule makes in order two bills reported favorably by the Committee on Financial Services. In addition, the rule makes in order a majority of the amendments submitted.

These bills were the subject of hearings in the Financial Services Committee, and both were marked up and reported favorably to the House. Both bills received bipartisan support in the committee, and I expect that we will see bipartisan support for both bills on the floor this week.

Mr. Speaker, formed in 1944, the World Bank is the oldest multilateral development bank. As a post-World War II effort of international cooperation, the goal of the World Bank was to fund reconstruction efforts in war-torn nations.

In 1960, the United States pushed for the creation of the International Development Association within the World Bank. Where the original World Bank division funded middle-income countries, the IDA was created to make concessional loans; that is, loans with low interest rates and long repayment periods to the world's poorest countries.

The number of countries served by the IDA currently stands at 75. The IDA is typically the single largest source of funding for critical social programs in these low-income countries. However, the bill before us reduces the United States' contribution to the IDA.

The IDA is funded through replenishments by donor countries. We are currently in the 18th replenishment period, known as IDA-18. The bill reduces the United States' contribution in IDA-18 by 15 percent. Further, the bill requires that the Treasury Department certify that the World Bank reform its practices and lending controls in relation to the IDA.

A 2016 report commissioned by the World Bank reveals serious problems with one particular IDA project in Uganda. While IDA's role is to reduce inequality and support the development of civil society, the report outlines numerous failures to achieve these objectives on the part of the IDA.

The report details how IDA financing of a project in Uganda led to systemic spreading of HIV/AIDS, sexual abuse of minors, child labor, retaliation against local citizens, gender-based violence, and other gross abuses of powerless Ugandans. While the IDA took several steps, including withdrawing some loans from this particular project, there is much concern that this project is indicative of many others.

The House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing at which testimony was received from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists indicating that governments that allow or participate in the abuse of their citizens and the subjugation of the poor have not been turned away by the World Bank.

The testimony reads in part: ``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.''

Mr. Speaker, the IDA has a quality control problem, and we are right in reducing their funding.

As if the abuse of citizens by corrupt governments is not enough, the committee has also uncovered evidence that the World Bank has serious internal problems as well.

According to the World Bank's Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank staff has long been incentivized to simply get more loans out the door without any incentive to ensure the quality of the projects. This has been a longstanding trend documented since the early 1990s.

But it is not just perverse incentives. The World Bank has not focused enough on rigidly guarding itself against internal corruption. A professor from Caltech testified before the committee that it was common for World Bank projects to be captured by corrupt governments and that World Bank staff try to suppress corruption investigations.

She said: ``Corruption investigations can shut down projects and derail careers. They are also inconvenient for senior management in the bank who are balancing delicate relationships with their country clients.''

Due to these problems, the underlying bill protects American taxpayers by withholding funding from the World Bank until these deficiencies are fixed.

Mr. Speaker, not only should we be holding international organizations accountable, we should also be holding our own government accountable, and the second bill made in order under this rule does just that.

In 2011, Dodd-Frank transferred to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulatory authority over home mortgages. Since then, CFPB has made information reporting by lenders more extensive.

The impact of these increased regulations has led to greater costs to lenders. Consequently, smaller lenders have had to pass on these costs directly to potential borrowers. This has reduced access to affordable credit to borrowers who would typically seek out smaller lending institutions.

The underlying bill is simple: exempt small lenders from CFPB's onerous reporting requirements.

Under the leadership of Chairman Hensarling, House Republicans have consistently put forward a plan to reform the CFPB. However, until we can pass broader reforms, we should do everything we can to protect Americans from harmful regulations pushed on them by the CFPB.

Today, we have two bills before us that hold powerful organizations accountable to American taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and these bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend from Colorado that the House did pass the Children's Health Insurance Program bill in November. We did send it to the Senate. Perhaps if he could talk to the leadership in his party over in the Senate, we could get that bill passed in the Senate instead of blocked, and we could deal with a very important issue, an issue in Colorado that is absolutely essential, because the money is running out in Colorado, one of the few States where it is even more important than many of the other States.

I appreciate my colleague's concern on this issue. I share his concern. The House acted responsibly in a broad, bipartisan bill. Hopefully, we can get our friends over in the Senate to get more done.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), my good friend and the sponsor of one of the bills today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), chair of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Overlooking corruption and abuse is unacceptable in any governing body, particularly one funded by the United States.

It is clear that serious reforms and oversight are needed at the World Bank. The International Development Association has strayed from its mission to help combat inequality around the world.

The World Bank Accountability Act puts our international partners on notice that the United States is not simply going to stand by and allow abuses to continue.

And while we stand up for the underprivileged around the world, we also must ensure that every American has equal access to our own financial institutions.

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act ensures that CFPB regulations do not shut out certain groups of Americans.

I thank Chairman Hensarling for putting these bills forward. I thank my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee, who have joined me on the floor today to make the case for these efforts. I thank Chairman Sessions for his leadership on the Rules Committee and for providing the debate on these issues today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and supporting the underlying bills. We must ensure that American taxpayer money is not spent on corrupt regimes and that all Americans have access to financing here in the U.S.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.