Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3326) to increase accountability, combat corruption, and strengthen management effectiveness at the World Bank, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2954) to amend the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 to specify which depository institutions are subject to the maintenance of records and disclosure requirements of such Act, and for other purposes.

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.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation that we are talking about today, the Home Mortgage Adjustment Act, has to be looked at in the light of the history that this country has had.

Our country has a HMDA bill, a home mortgage act, a Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, because of years, literally centuries, of discrimination and racism which has allowed for Americans to be excluded from the hope of homeownership.

When people say: Look, I believe I have been the victim of mortgage discrimination, they have been very difficult and hard-pressed to prove it because the people who issue mortgages say: Well, that wasn't the reason. Well, I know that your credit score and your downpayment and everything is just like other people, but that is not the reason.

Well, the truth is that it is the data that the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act provides for that puts people in a position where they can say: Look, I have been discriminated against. How come there is this wide racial disparity?

As a result of it, justice has been yielded to people who have been victims of discrimination seeking nothing more than the American Dream of homeownership.

So along comes the bill today, the bill we are considering at this moment, which essentially says that we are going to backtrack on the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. We are not going to enforce it, even though we know that it has yielded justice for people, equal protection under the law for people, but we think that the needs of businesses are just going to be so important that we are going to backslide on the issue of justice.

So, Mr. Speaker, today I have to urge a very strong ``no'' vote on this bill because this bill says that America's commitment to liberty and justice for all is not something that this House wants to live up to. We are going to say that we can't abide government regulations even if it means we are going to advance the cause of a civil and human equality for all Americans.

Now, of course, the folks might say: Well, it is not all HMDA that we are trying to change. What we are trying to do is just stop the implementation of HMDA data, and it is only going to be for institutions that are of a smaller size; and even then, it is only going to be certain data.

Yes, they will minimize the negative impact of this legislation. But there is no doubt that this is backing off of a commitment that this Nation has made so that all people in our country can freely participate in homeownership.

They will try to minimize and say: It is only credit unions and banks that only issue about 500 or fewer mortgages. When you add all those folks up, that adds up to being a whole lot of mortgages, Mr. Speaker. It is only certain kinds of data, and that data is critical to making sure that people are included in the American Dream. So I am urging a very powerful ``no'' vote.

Now, the people who advocate this legislation say: Well, it is just too much burden on business. We can't be bothered with having business fill out forms. It is quite inconvenient.

But the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that, if this were such a problem, we would all come together and figure out how to make it easier to meet the requirements of HMDA. But that is not what is going on. They just want to delay the implementation of collection of critical data which will lead to the furtherance of the American Dream, which is homeownership.

Mr. Speaker, it was only 8 years ago that we went through the largest foreclosure crisis in the history of our country other than the Great Depression, just 8 years ago. It wasn't decades ago. It was really a few years ago, well within the memory of people who serve in this body right now. Many of us were serving in this body during that foreclosure crisis.

Mr. Speaker, all Americans were hurt. They were hurt when the value of their homes went down, and they were hurt when they saw unemployment go up. All Americans were hurt. But if we are perfectly honest, Mr. Speaker, not all Americans were hurt the same. African-American and Latino household wealth took the biggest hit of all. Because of this devastating blow, because of this shot, we saw the stripping away of African-American wealth to extreme degrees, not to mention people from Latino families.

We cannot say, on the one hand, ``Pull yourself up by the bootstraps, work hard, save, and own a home,'' and, on the other hand, take away the tools by which people can get that home. But that is exactly what we are doing right here. We are saying that we are going to take the tools that you need to make for a fairer, more open and more just neighborhood, we are going to take those tools that you rely on, and we are going to say that you cannot have those tools because the demands of business require that we don't do that; it is just too expensive, it is too burdensome, and it is too inconvenient.

Let me tell you this: 250 years of slavery, 100 years of Jim Crow, and another 70 years of social discrimination are pretty doggone inconvenient, too. If HMDA is a tool that we use to make our society a more equal and more perfect Union, then why would we backtrack on it? Why would we backslide on it? Why would we do those things?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the underlying bill, the bill that is being attempted to be amended today, didn't drop out of the sky. We have it because there was historic, provable, and demonstrable discrimination. That is why we had it.

This bill, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act--a completely different piece which, I argue, backslides on our commitment to fair housing--would undermine our ability to stop discrimination by exempting 85 percent of the Nation's banks and credit unions and 48 percent of the Nation's nonbank lenders from having to follow the updated reporting requirements.

What are these reporting requirements? They are things that banks collect already. They are pieces of information being collected now. All they have to do is take one piece of paper that they have already prepared the documentation for and put it into another document. That is it.

Now, the application borrower's age, that is an important thing to combat age discrimination.

Credit score, name, and version of the credit scoring model, that is an important piece of information. That is already in the underwriting file and in FCRA.

The debt-to-income ratio is already in the underwriting file and is required by QM compliance.

Automated underwriting system name, that is in the underwriting file.

Other information about the property, securing the loan, and the value of the property to secure the loan, that is in the underwriting file and it is in TILA requirement.

Combined loan-to-value ratio, that is in there already because of underwriting.

Manufactured home property type, land or without land, that is in the underwriting of the file.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that information is critical because, in the manufactured housing industry, we know there is predatory lending and unfairness to borrowers a lot, so we need that kind of information to protect borrowers.

I reject the argument that somehow, if we don't have commonsense regulations and disclosure, that is going to result in more--more-- loans being issued. There is no evidence to support that. What it will likely result in is more discrimination happening and perhaps people who own the banks and the credit unions just pocketing more money. But the fact that less regulation and oversight is going to yield more justice for people who have historically been excluded, there is no basis to believe that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman made a point that I thought was definitely worth mentioning. He said that he wanted to know how the law plays out boots on the ground back at home. He talked about: Does it hurt you or does it help you? The gentleman made a specific point about getting real-life, tangible experience people have with the law.

I am glad he mentioned that, and the reason why is that I talked to a woman earlier this week as I prepared to be here today. She said she scrubbed floors in a hospital for 30 years. She scrubbed floors in a hospital for 30 years. She got up every day, and she saved her money. Her family never owned a home; they rented. That is all they could ever afford to do. She applied for a loan in a bank for a home once she got her money together.

She was hopeful. She was optimistic. She even had a home picked out that she wanted to own and have her grandchildren and kids live with her in that home. She was denied. She had a good credit score. She saved her money. She shared with me that she felt like it was because of her race.

Now, of course, nobody is going to admit that. When it comes to mortgage lending, Mr. Speaker, the people who make decisions that exclude one group of people and include another one don't use the nasty, ugly language that all of us condemn. They don't come in here and use the N word. They don't say ugly stuff.

These people wear suits. They wear ties. They have nice, pressed white shirts. Many of them have monograms on those shirts. These are the members of the country club. Yet this lady who worked so hard for so long to own a home was denied.

It was when statistical analysis was brought forth that people decided maybe they should just give her that loan after all. It was when she went to legal aid and complained.

I can tell you this, it is the kind of thing that is important.

How do people on the ground experience the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act?

They experience it as something that gives them a chance to have a good life, too. If you never felt the sting of discrimination, maybe it is just a business regulation to you. But if you have been looked in the eye and told ``no,'' and you know that this is not right and you know it is probably because of who you are, then, and only then, will you understand why it is important not to weaken the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.

I don't doubt that people who are offering this amendment to relieve the regulatory ``burden'' have animus in their heart. I really don't believe they do. But I will tell you this: they are listening to the folks in the country club. They are listening to the folks who are on the other side of the table. They are not listening to the people who need that mortgage, who work for that mortgage, who deserve that mortgage.

That is not who they are talking to. If they would sit down and listen to folks who just want to own a home, maybe they wouldn't see this as just some sort of a bothersome regulation. It is getting in the way of business.

How can we possibly ever allow that?

To the folks who would say that, discrimination is a theoretical concept. It might happen to some people, but none of the fine people they know in the banking industry would ever do that.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill came up because people were living with mortgage discrimination. It came up because people were being denied. It came up because people that were being told ``no'' should have been told ``yes.'' That is what is going on right here. This is why this bill, this Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act, needs to be defeated.

If you want to talk about ease of regulation, we can always talk about how to help people comply with the law. I am not against that. But what I am against is backsliding and backtracking on the progress that this country has made in favor of equal access to credit and mortgage lending. This bill is a threat to that.

There shouldn't be anyone who votes for this piece of legislation who seriously considers how damaging discrimination has been historically and who seriously considers how the lives of people who spent so much time simply trying to be part of this country have been told ``no.''

There are a lot of groups that agree. There are 173 national and State-based civil rights, fair housing, and consumer and community organizations that agree. There are 25 community labor and public interest groups that agree. They say this:

H.R. 2954 would nearly quadruple the number of banks

exempted from the key mortgage disclosures designed to detect

predatory and discriminatory lending, leading to 5,400 banks

being exempted, as well as an additional 487 nonbanks.

This is not a small thing. I just say that I give everybody credit for good intentions. I really do. But I think that folks need to really think about what it means to be on the other side of that desk when you are applying for that mortgage, not just the businessmen and -women who deny mortgages or grant them as they see fit.

Public Citizen says:

This bill would eliminate race and gender home mortgage

reporting requirements for lenders who make fewer than 500

closed-end mortgage loans and fewer than 500 open-end lines

of credit. There is really no benefit to such an exemption,

as the reporting requirements are negligible.

Lenders who write mortgages obtain significant data on

their customers, as they should. Reporting a few items of

this data is not cumbersome. The potential harm, on the other

hand, is to subvert the basic intent of the Home Mortgage

Disclosure Act, which is to publicize whether a bank is truly

serving its geographic market on a race and gender blind

basis.

What about CAP, the Center for American Progress?

They say:

While on its face this appears to be a simple regulatory

relief bill, this provision would exempt the majority of

mortgage lenders from new Home Mortgage Disclosure Act

reporting requirements.

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act reporting is the primary

source of information on the availability and quality of

mortgage lending and serves a vital function in fair lending

assessments.

This bill would effectively paint an incomplete or

inaccurate picture of lending activity in the communities

across the country, making it vastly more difficult for

regulators and researchers alike to assess the state of the

mortgage market.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this piece of legislation. It is wrong. It is not the right thing. There are other ways to do what the authors want to do. But simply saying, ``All these people are exempt and you don't have to comply,'' is not the right way to go. It will set us back as a nation. It will turn us back as a nation. I am urging a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.

As we have heard today, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act is a critical civil rights bill. It is a civil rights bill designed to increase opportunity for all Americans. It is about liberty and justice for all. It is about the Equal Protection Clause. It is about those things that men and women laid their whole lives down for to make this country more fair, more equal.

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act's intent was to ensure that equal opportunity was given to everyone with respect to mortgages. The law is necessary, given our country's long history of discrimination. Through slavery, we took away rights and freedoms of Black men and women for 250 years. We made them property rather than human beings. It was followed by nearly a century of segregation and disenfranchisement.

As a result of it, people stood up to say we have got to have laws to protect people. We might not be able to change hearts and minds, but we can change behavior. And HMDA helped change behavior.

We are still fighting to make sure we have a more equal society. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act empowers the Department of Justice, State attorneys general, Consumer Bureau, and the public to fight back against discriminatory lending and monitor access to mortgage credit by traditionally underserved communities and populations.

If a financial institution denies a family a mortgage, they can provide a number of excuses for that denial. Only the data collected through the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act proves that there is a broader issue of discrimination at play.

This bill, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act, exempts institutions from certain HMDA reporting requirements if they originate 500 or fewer closed-end loans, which includes mortgages and car loans, and institutions that issue 500 or fewer open-ended loans. That is nearly 6,000 institutions across America that will stop reporting HMDA data if this bill goes into effect.

This opens the door for discrimination. It opens the door for red- lining, and it is not acceptable. That is why I am offering a motion to recommit that would ensure that individual banks affected by this bill take steps to reduce discrimination in mortgage lending. If opening the door for discrimination is not the intent of the bill, there should be no issues why my amendment is not passed.

My amendment simply says that the CEO and the president of any financial institution now exempted from collecting and reporting important HMDA data fields must attest that, one, the institution is compliant with all relevant fair-lending laws; two, the institution has established adequate internal controls to detect whether the institution provides equal opportunity; and, three, the institution's senior executives, managers, and loan officers and other employees who are substantially involved in underwriting residential mortgage loans complete an antidiscrimination and diversity training.

Ultimately, my amendment is meant to ensure that each exempted institution is properly incentivized to do what they're supposed to do: lend to all qualified borrowers. By holding the CEO accountable, my amendment ensures that lenders will take the actions necessary to begin to overcome historic racism, sexism, and other discrimination just like HMDA was intended.

If it is a fact that the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act is not designed to open the door and green-light discrimination, then this amendment is a commonsense proposal to make sure that that does not happen and that the leader of the institution maintains responsibility for that not happening.

Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member to vote for this motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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, pursuant to House Resolution 693, I call up the bill (H.R. 2954) to amend the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 to specify which depository institutions are subject to the maintenance of records and disclosure requirements of such Act, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 2954, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act.

H.R. 2954, which was introduced by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee, is a very important piece of legislation

that will provide much-needed regulatory relief for our community banks and credit unions from onerous CFPB regulations that are impeding their ability to make home loans to our constituents.

On January 1 of this year, draconian changes went into effect related to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act known as HMDA. These changes, which were mandated by Dodd-Frank and blindly implemented by the CFPB, radically expanded the information that lenders are required to collect, record, and report about mortgage applications and loans. But like many things the CFPB is involved in, the rule went far, far beyond what was originally intended by Congress, and effects have far-reaching and negative consequences on community financial institutions and home buyers.

To be more specific, the CFPB's updated HMDA rule now requires financial institutions to collect 48--48--unique, different data fields on each mortgage loan they make. This is more than double--double--the number, Mr. Speaker, of data fields lenders were required to collect before the rule went into effect.

Now, as if adding 25--two dozen--more data fields weren't enough, the CFPB rule also modified 20 of the 23 existing fields in this constant, constant changing of the regulatory scheme to fit the narrative of regulators rather than focus on the cost and benefits to our constituents of existing statutes.

Mr. Speaker, again, the constant changing of this regulatory scheme, the increased complexity and cost, we do not fully appreciate the impact on our community financial institutions, and we do not fully appreciate how this is impeding the success and growth of our community financial institutions in the communities we represent.

You don't have to take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. A community banker in Kansas has said that: ``As crazy as it seems, our current HMDA process includes four people verifying HMDA data on each loan.''

Mr. Speaker, that was before the changes we are discussing today.

According to that same community banker, who is trying to fund homes in his local community, doubling the number of data fields, as required in the CFPB's HMDA rule, ``will almost be overwhelming for a bank such as ours.''

As a community banker from Nebraska has stated: ``All the new mortgage lending rules have made it almost impossible to provide timely service to our local customers.''

So home buyers are feeling this effect, Mr. Speaker. As one community banker from Ohio explained, he was working with a woman who recently went through the tragedy of divorce. She was trying to refinance her home in order to make ends meet. But after filing mountains and mountains of paperwork and wading through all the different forms, she looked up at the banker and said: ``Jim, just tell me it will be okay.''

As Jim put it: ``At that point, I realized just how overwhelming all the forms and disclosures were to a customer.''

Sadly, we all have--the lawmakers, the regulators, and the bankers-- forgotten the most important item in this entire process: the customer.

This community banker is right, Mr. Speaker. Our local financial institutions, our community banks, our smallest financial institutions especially, they have to spend less time in resources meeting Washington's complex, burdensome, onerous paperwork requirements. Instead, we need to give them more freedom to do what they do best, and that is to help people in their communities get into homes they can actually afford to keep.

But doubling--doubling--HMDA data requirements needlessly-- needlessly--makes home buying more expensive, more confusing, and more difficult for the very people that we should be trying to help.

Home buyers like April from Kentucky wrote that the process to get a home: ``Is almost impossible and extremely frustrating.''

Or a home buyer from Michigan by the name of Rob, who explained: ``The very people this was supposed to be helpful to, lower income working Americans, have been the parties most devastated by the overreach.''

And that is exactly what this is, Mr. Speaker, overreach. And it is not only these individuals, but even charities--great charities like Habitat for Humanity, who said: ``Thanks to the CFPB's burdensome regulations and rules, charities such as Habitat that provide these loans have found it more difficult to do their important work.''

H.R. 2954, from the gentleman from Minnesota, simply addresses the fact that in order to make home loans, small financial institutions should not and cannot afford to keep pace with the massive laws that disregard their businesses, their business models, and create an uneven playing field.

Mr. Speaker, for this reason and for the others I have stated, I urge all colleagues to help struggling would-be home buyers in our districts and to support H.R. 2954.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), a very valuable member of our committee and the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of our Financial Services' Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the vice chairman of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it was a most interesting and passionate speech that my colleague gave.

I have some good news for him. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution are not repealed by this bill, and neither is HMDA. HMDA is not repealed. Even the new CFPB regulations that double the data of HMDA are not repeal.

I would urge the gentleman from Minnesota to actually read the bill, which happens to be four pages long, and he would find out that a current--a current--exemption that exists under current law for our smallest financial institutions that are trying to make loans to the very people he claims he wants to protect, that is slightly enlarged.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), who is the majority whip of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), who is another hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Georgia an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating listening to my friends on the other side of the aisle. It is fascinating because they tell us they want to protect the single mothers. They tell us they want to protect the people of color. They tell us they want to help and protect the poor, but they are protecting them out of their home ownership opportunities.

Because of the increased HMDA compliance on our smallest community financial institutions, they are ceasing to make these loans. But they will sleep well tonight in their apartments and in their rental homes, knowing that my good friends on the other side of the aisle protect them out of their ability to finally realize their portion of the American Dream and have that shot at home ownership.

Mr. Speaker, how many people have to lose their home ownership opportunities due to the onslaught of the onerous Federal regulations?

What is fascinating about this debate is that what they would discover is that HMDA is still the law of the land. Again, I would encourage my friends to actually read the bill. I think it is 3 pages long; maybe 3\1/2\ pages long.

HMDA doesn't go away if we enact H.R. 2954. But what it says is that for our smallest financial institutions, the HMDA requirements, the doubling of HMDA requirements, the increased burden, will not be placed on our smallest financial institutions, as we are losing one every single day. As we lose them, we lose that credit opportunity for the least of these that my friends, I know in their heart, want to help, but they are not helping them.

Listen to those who are actually trying to make these loans. By the way, I don't know of a successful business model for any bank that says: You know what? I am going to make more money if I don't lend it to you. If I refuse to make loans, if I refuse to serve my community, if I practice active racism, that will be good for my bottom line.

I am not seeing it in the Fifth District of Texas, and I highly suspect that it is difficult to find in the United States of America in the 21st century.

So I hear from the community banker in Nebraska, who says:

Go to any community bank reporting HMDA and have them sit

down and watch bank staff review a loan file. Then document

the data showing how difficult it is to prevent errors.

This bank got out of the business of loaning. They said:

We don't need the ulcers created by such stress from the

fear of the regulators.

I heard from a community bank in Oklahoma that said:

Because of Dodd-Frank, we no longer offer-purchase house

loans. We are servicing only the ones we have on the books.

Thank you Dodd-Frank and HMDA. May I have another.

I heard from a community bank in Nevada that said:

The mortgage regulations intended to help the consumer have

been particularly harmful. My bank is a very small community

bank servicing communities in rural Nevada. We used to do

quite a bit of residential mortgage lending, but hardly any

now, due to the restrictive regulations.

So, again, I would just ask that my friends on the other side of the aisle open up both their hearts and their heads and see how many people are being hurt by the cumulative impact of this regulatory tsunami hitting those who loan the money to the least of these to make sure that they can achieve their version of the American Dream.

And where was all the angst, Mr. Speaker? Where was all the angst? My friends on the other side of the aisle talk about statistics. Well, here is a statistic that comes from the Federal Reserve: When the qualified mortgage rule of the CFPB is fully implemented, 30 percent fewer Blacks and Hispanics, people of color, will be able to get mortgages versus 2010. There is a statistic.

And I would say, Mr. Speaker, perhaps that is even a more valuable statistic when it comes to looking at the increased HMDA burden placed by the CFPB on our community financial institutions. Maybe that is a more important statistic than even the 20-some-odd new fields of HMDA data that CFPB is requiring on the smallest banks and credit unions in America.

My friends on the other side of the aisle say: Oh, we care about the plight of these community banks. Well, why are we still losing one a day, and why do you tell us that you care about their plight and their ability to loan money but you don't vote with us?

Fortunately, some Members on the other side of the aisle in the other body over my shoulder, Mr. Speaker--there is actually a bipartisan bill in the Senate that does exactly what H.R. 2954 does. I am very happy to say that it was a bipartisan bill coming out of the Financial Services Committee, also enjoying some Democratic support.

But, again, I just don't think my friends who are debating now have read the bill. I encourage them to read the bill, and every Member ought to support H.R. 2954 and support the opportunity to buy a home in the American Dream.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend and colleague from Minnesota restating, in his motion to recommit, what is essentially already current law; but, unfortunately, he adds on yet one more form for community financial institutions to fill out on top of the 18.7 gazillion forms they already have to fill out, the cost of which ultimately is imposed upon those who are trying to find credit and find affordable credit.

And I would remind the gentleman from Minnesota again, every single financial institution impacted by H.R. 2954 still must submit HMDA data. They are still subject to HMDA. For the third time, they are still subject to HMDA. And I am sure that all will be glad to hear Federal regulators still have statutory authority to take any formal enforcement actions against entities for violations of the laws or rules.

But why, when we are trying to make it easier for the least of these to buy a home, are we trying to, instead, my friends on the other side of the aisle, make it more difficult by adding yet more forms, forms that also say: Do you know what? Even though this is America, you are guilty until proven innocent.

That is a whole different argument, and I wish we had time to develop it here today, Mr. Speaker.

But here is what we need to do. We need to make sure that struggling, hardworking Americans have homeownership opportunities, and the regulatory burden that came out of the previous administration is making it more difficult. So, now, to think that we would double the HMDA requirement data--double--for our smallest financial institutions that are fighting for survival, that are trying to help our constituents buy homes is unthinkable; to add yet one more Federal law, one more Federal form on top of all the others that we have, is just unfathomable. It is unthinkable. It will only harm those whom we are trying to help, and I would urge all Members to reject the motion to recommit.

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

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.