The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“WORLD BANK ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H440-H452 on Jan. 17, 2018.
The State Department is responsibly for international relations with a budget of more than $50 billion. Tenure at the State Dept. is increasingly tenuous and it's seen as an extension of the President's will, ambitions and flaws.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
WORLD BANK ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
General Leave
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 693 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3326.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) to preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1449
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3326) to increase accountability, combat corruption, and strengthen management effectiveness at the World Bank, with Mr. Duncan of Tennessee in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3326, the World Bank Accountability Act. Frankly, I don't quite understand why every Member is not rising in support of H.R. 3326.
This is important legislation, which is sponsored by my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee. It was cosponsored by a senior Democrat on our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). Mr. Chairman, it passed our committee by a unanimous vote 60-0. Again, Mr. Chairman, this measure passed our committee by a unanimous vote of 60-0.
H.R. 3326 makes a share of future World Bank appropriations contingent upon vitally needed reforms, with focus on the World Bank's International Development Association, known as IDA, which is the World Bank's concessional lending window, dedicated to 75 of the world's poorest countries.
Mr. Chairman, the reforms in this bill have emerged from five different oversight hearings held in our committee over the past 2 years and they all enjoy bipartisan support.
The bill also supports the administration's goal of ensuring that the World Bank's work is consistent with U.S. priorities that are, obviously, financed by the U.S. taxpayer. In the President's FY 2018 budget, the administration called for a holding to account international organizations whose missions don't advance U.S. foreign policy's interest or which haven't been well managed. H.R. 3326 would enact the administration's request for a 15 percent reduction on authorized funds for IDA.
In addition, Mr. Barr's legislation contains crucial national security provisions, including a prohibition on World Bank assistance to countries that knowingly violate U.N. Security Council sanctions on North Korea.
Also, safeguarding our national security is a provision that helps ensure World Bank assistance won't be used for state sponsors of terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense requirement that benefited from the input of our democratic colleague on the committee: again, Mr. Sherman from California.
So, again, Mr. Chairman, it does kind of beg the questions: Why are we here today? Why are we debating a bill that received support from every single Republican and Democrat on the committee?
As some who may be viewing our proceedings know, there is such a thing known as a suspension calendar for relatively noncontroversial items. This bill should have been dispensed with on what is known as a suspension calendar since it passed our committee 60-0.
But now, apparently, the ranking member has had a change of heart on opposing a bill that she voted for on committee. So some may be confused, and indeed we are confused. It is interesting that we now see opposition to linking these IDA payments to reforms, but that is exactly what Democrats on the Financial Services Committee did in 2005. It is exactly what they did when they voted to withhold 25 percent of IDA funds in a foreign operation's appropriations bill. Last July, the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), consistent with her earlier vote, voted in support of H.R. 3326 as well. So, again, some of us are confused as to why it is being opposed now if she has voted for the policy of withholding twice, including voting for the very bill we are debating today.
It is also important to note, Mr. Chairman, that the reforms included in this bill are those that the World Bank itself deems are important. As far back as 1992, a bank management review highlighted its perverse staff incentives that made pushing money out the door more important than making a dent in global poverty. And as recently as 2014, a bank evaluation report confirmed that these very same perverse incentives are still in place.
Then there is the notorious case of mismanagement in the Uganda Transport Sector Development Project: a scandalous bank initiative, where basic lack of project oversight led to sexual exploitation of underage girls, repeated harassment of female staff, and deficient safety measures that very well may have resulted in five fatalities--
lest we forget.
In 2015, the World Bank's president had this to say:
The multiple failures we have seen in this project on the part of the World Bank, the government of Uganda, and a government contractor are unacceptable. It is our obligation to properly supervise all investment projects to ensure that the poor and vulnerable are protected in our work. In this case, we did not.
I am committed to making sure that we do everything in our power, working with other stakeholders first, to fully review the circumstance of this project, and then to quickly learn from our, and other's, failures so they do not happen again.
Mr. Chairman, if the World Bank thinks these reforms are necessary, shouldn't we all think these reforms are necessary?
And how about the testimony of Sasha Chavkin, a reporter for the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, who testified before our committee?
Sasha said:
We found that, over a decade, spanning from 2004 to 2013, projects financed by the World Bank physically or economically displaced an estimated 3.4 million people around the world.
Mr. Chairman, these are some of the world's most vulnerable displaced by the World Bank that screams out for more reforms.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Barr for saying with his legislation that enough is enough. He has produced a serious, long overdue reform bill, one that was supported in our committee unanimously 60-0. We typically could not get a 60-0 vote on a Mother's Day resolution, yet we have it for this bill. Again, it just begs credibility and credulity as to why are we here today debating a bill that was passed unanimously in committee. I urge the House to adopt it unanimously.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3326, the World Bank Accountability Act of 2017.
Last year, Democrats on the Financial Services Committee joined our Republican colleagues in favorably reporting H.R. 3326 out of committee to support the bill's authorization of a U.S. contribution of $3.29 billion to multilateral development efforts and to enforce the importance of U.S. leadership at the international financial institutions, but the favorable report in committee came with clear conditions for the future of the bill.
Democrats made it clear during consideration of this bill in committee that our ongoing support for the measure would depend upon changes to provisions in the bill moving forward that put critical U.S. funding at risk. But here we are today and Republicans have not made any effort at all to address our very specific concerns.
Namely, the bill would cut up to 30 percent of the U.S. contribution to the International Development Association--IDA--in any year in which the Treasury Secretary does not certify to Congress that the World Bank has adopted or is taking steps to implement two sets of reforms mandated in the bill.
IDA is the arm of the World Bank that provides grants and other assistance to the world's 77 poorest countries, which are home to more than 450 million people living in extreme poverty. Cuts to U.S. funds to IDA would punish millions of children and other vulnerable people in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, who are living in extreme poverty, who are suffering from famine, or who are emerging from conflict.
Democrats do not believe that cutting U.S. funds for, and diminishing U.S. influence at, the international financial institutions is an effective approach to reform.
{time} 1500
To remedy this problem with the bill, Representative Moore, who is the ranking member on our committee's Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade, had sought to offer an amendment on the floor to strike the provisions in the bill that would give the administration cover to cut U.S. funding from multilateral efforts aimed at alleviating global poverty. The amendment would have maintained both sets of reforms currently in the bill and directed the Secretary of the Treasury to actively promote these policy goals through advocacy and direct engagement with World Bank management as well as the World Bank's other major shareholders.
Unfortunately, the Rules Committee refused to make this amendment in order, thus depriving the House of the opportunity to decide for itself which approach it prefers to take: reforming the World Bank by fiat with a threat to cut funding or reforming the World Bank through the exercise of U.S. influence and power at the World Bank based on the merits of the reforms themselves.
Mr. Chairman, the process by which this bill has come to the floor stands in stark contrast to our committee's long history of working together on issues relating to global economic governance.
For many years, the Financial Services Committee has worked in a bipartisan fashion to achieve a number of important reforms at the World Bank, including increased transparency, the creation of the inspection panel, more disclosure of information, and closer consultation with local communities most affected by World Bank projects.
We were able to successfully advance these policy goals through serious and direct negotiations and sustained engagement with both the Department of the Treasury and the World Bank itself, not by threatening to walk away from our commitments, but the Trump administration has consistently demonstrated troubling attitudes toward the role of the U.S. in the world.
In November of last year, in testimony before the Financial Services Committee, David Malpass, Treasury's Under Secretary for International Affairs, expressed the administration's view that globalism and multilateralism have gone substantially too far.
In December, the Trump administration refused to pledge any funds for the next replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, a small multilateral development bank that helps the poor in remote, rural areas where few donors operate. Of course, just last week, this President made ignorant, racist, and deplorable comments about Africa, where, as it happens, IDA focuses a great deal of its resources and energy.
Mr. Chairman, the more committed we are to our goals and to our ideals, the more morally obligated we are to do everything we can to advance those goals.
The legislation before us today, in its current form, fails to meet that test, so I will be opposing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. We can, and we should, do better.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the sponsor of the legislation that passed unanimously 60-0 in our committee and the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank him for his support and leadership in bringing my legislation to the floor.
As Chairman Hensarling has already noted, H.R. 3326 passed the House Financial Services Committee by a unanimous vote of 60-0. No amendments were offered by any of our Democratic colleagues during that markup. So it is disappointing to me that the ranking member is standing in opposition today, despite voting for this bill in committee and then waiting half a year before proposing any changes.
Nonetheless, I want to address the gentlewoman's criticism of the withholding mechanism in this legislation, because she seems to share a philosophy endemic at the World Bank, which basically says this: money equals impact. But this runs counter to the evidence we have heard again and again during multiple oversight hearings.
It also runs counter to how the World Bank itself operates with its borrowers. The World Bank lends to poor countries by attaching conditions. People can disagree if that conditionality is too much or too little, but the World Bank affects behavior by telling governments that there are no blank checks. The ranking member knows this, and it goes without saying that there are many elements to World Bank conditionality that the ranking member and her Democratic colleagues passionately support, but if the gentlewoman from California would never tolerate the World Bank writing blank checks to governments, it is odd that she wants Congress to write a blank check to the World Bank.
Here is how a former, longtime senior staff member of the World Bank put it in testimony before our subcommittee last Congress: `` . . . the reality is that bank staff are assessed by the volume of their lending, dollars of money lent. And that is just a poor indicator of impact on poverty. You have impact on poverty sometimes when you don't lend at all.''
This perverse lending culture at the World Bank has been documented for at least a quarter century and documented by the World Bank itself.
Mr. Chairman, I want to draw your attention to a 1992 bank management review entitled, ``Effective Implementation: Key to Development Impact'', commonly known as the Wapenhans Report, which details a pressure to lend that distorts staff incentives at the expense of management and project implementation. Again, this is from 1992.
Well, fast forward to 2014, and a report by the bank's own evaluation office entitled, ``Learning and Results in World Bank Operations: How the Bank Learns,'' concludes that the pressure to lend is alive and well.
In addition to focusing on better incentives and management at the World Bank, H.R. 3326 requires the World Bank to more effectively support secure property rights, due process, and economic freedom. As distinguished academics such as Nobel economics laureate Angus Deaton, New York University's William Easterly, and the University of Chicago's James Robinson have found, foreign aid makes little positive difference if we are indifferent to the poor's right to exert control over their livelihoods, own land and other assets, and be free from arbitrary government interference.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if the World Bank supports a corrupt government, that doesn't mean that it is going to help the condition of the impoverished in that country that is denied economic freedom.
Why doesn't the ranking member support these commonsense principles? If the bank doesn't lend with the rights of the poor in mind, then the ranking member's concerns about withholding money aren't serious. If money is being squandered and it isn't helping the poor to begin with, why would you not want to withhold it?
Again, our Democratic friends love conditionality at the World Bank; they just had a change of heart when a Republican-sponsored bill is holding the World Bank to high standards. So let no one watching this debate be fooled by crocodile tears.
Let me close by touching on the national security elements of this bill, which the ranking member also plans to vote against.
H.R. 3326 incentivizes the World Bank to strengthen its work to fight violent extremism and keep state sponsors of terrorism away from World Bank resources. This latter provision was a direct result of bipartisan discussions that we had in our subcommittee, so it is shocking to see anyone on the other side of the aisle oppose the legislation.
Finally, this bill would also ensure that the U.S. oppose World Bank financial assistance to countries that knowingly fail to enforce U.N. Security Council sanctions against North Korea. Our committee passed nearly identical language as part of the Otto Warmbier North Korea Nuclear Sanctions Act, which I am proud to have sponsored, and the provision benefitted directly from input from my subcommittee ranking member, Ms. Moore. The committee vote, yet again, was unanimous on that bill, and the House went on to pass it by a vote of 415-2.
It boggles the mind that any Member of this body would vote against that language as part of H.R. 3326.
In closing, if the ranking member is upset that we take the interests of the poor more seriously than the interests of the World Bank, then so be it, but I believe the World Bank's interests and the poor's interests should be aligned, not just in theory, but in practice, and if they are not, it is the World Bank that should look at itself in the mirror.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3326.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas really has presented rather hollow arguments that have no place in this debate. This is about our humanitarianism and about our strategic position in the world.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3326, the World Bank Accountability Act of 2017.
Let me be clear, from the outset, that I support the World Bank and its mission. The World Bank is a vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries. It works to reduce poverty and support development around the globe.
Let me also be clear that I support this bill's authorization of
$3.29 billion to the World Bank's International Development Association, which provides grants and very low-interest loans to the poorest 77 countries on the planet. These countries use this funding for a wide array of investments in areas like education, health, public administration, infrastructure, and resource development, but when I voted for this bill in committee, I joined the ranking member and the rest of my Democratic colleagues in making clear that my support was dependent on working together on making changes to the bill as we moved to the floor.
This is about the right of the minority to provide meaningful input into legislation, and that was an agreement that we struck before we voted on the bill.
Despite Democrats' best efforts, that did not happen, and there continue to be provisions in this bill that need to be addressed.
For example, the bill calls for withholding 30 percent of the U.S. contribution to IDA in any year over a 6-year period in which the Treasury Secretary cannot certify to Congress that the World Bank has adopted or is taking steps to implement two sets of reforms mandated in the bill.
In addition, if the Treasury Department cannot report that the World Bank has met either or both of these reforms in any given year, the bill forces U.S. funding to the World Bank to be withheld and makes it more difficult for the World Bank to implement these reforms going forward.
As currently drafted, this bill reflects a total misunderstanding of how the international system works. Multilateral institutions, like the World Bank, which we set up, require sustained U.S. involvement and leadership.
It is unrealistic to think that the U.S. can impose its will on the World Bank. Withholding funds is not an effective approach to reform. The only way to achieve the reforms we are seeking at the World Bank is through our participation and commitment.
At times like this, we must not retreat from our involvement or responsibility on the world stage.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Curtis). The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Placing restrictions on our involvement or undermining international efforts that promote growth and reduce poverty is not something that we should support.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage every Member in the House to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say when my colleague on the other side of the aisle talks about meaningful participation, not one single amendment was offered by my Democratic friends. It was a perfect bill. It passed 60-0.
I would also point out the only leverage we have as the United States is our contribution, and that is what this bill does.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.
{time} 1515
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the World Bank Accountability Act, sponsored by my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
Having had the opportunity last Congress to chair the subcommittee that Mr. Barr now leads, I can tell my colleagues that the reforms in this bill are real and they're urgent.
Let me highlight one case of management failure at the World Bank that I focused on last Congress, alongside with my ranking member, the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore). I think the scandal will illuminate not only the reasoning behind the reforms demanded by H.R. 3326 but, also, the mechanism for achieving those reforms, as the chairman was pointing out. It is the power of our purse that will effect change.
In 2015, the World Bank canceled an IDA--International Development Association, as has been referred to--road project in Uganda. This initiative saw appalling lapses in basic management by the Bank which, literally, enabled sexual exploitation of children to happen. When local Ugandans complained to the Bank staff, they were ignored. Only after the Bank's ombudsman became involved directly did the Bank really investigate the abuses.
My colleagues on the Financial Services Committee and I were so outraged by the scandal that I, along with Ms. Moore, my ranking member, wrote a letter on July 14 of 2016 to the World Bank demanding corrective action.
Here is the thing: To underscore the gravity of the Bank's management failures, we originally proposed a letter at the highest levels of the committee, including the chairman and the ranking member. In fact, the letter as it went out--and I will include it in the Record--was on the letterhead of Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Maxine Waters. And, unfortunately, the ranking member then refused to sign the letter, then just leaving it as a subcommittee letter that went out by myself and Ranking Member Moore.
Committee on Financial Services,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 14, 2016.Dr. Jim Yong Kim,President, World Bank Group,Washington, DC.
Dear Dr. Kim: We are writing to express our alarm over the World Bank's cancelled Uganda Transport Sector Development Project. As you know, the Bank is facing serious allegations related to misconduct by a Chinese contractor, including sexual exploitation of minors, repeated harassment of female staff, and deficient safety measures that may have resulted in five fatalities. The Bank has admitted that its supervision of the project was inadequate, particularly with respect to protecting Ugandan girls.
In addition to negligent supervision, the Bank's slow response to local communities' accusations is troubling. According to the Bank's own timeline, Ugandans had to wait six months from the time they first voiced their complaints until the Bank's Country Director wrote to public authorities requesting follow-up by law enforcement. Ten months elapsed before the Bank suspended the project, and delays in the Management Response meant that the Bank's Inspection Panel did not visit Uganda until one year following the initial allegations. As the Panel continues to investigate this case, we urge you and Bank management to cooperate fully while respecting the Panel's independence. We also ask that any findings of negligence and wrongdoing lead to appropriate disciplinary action,
The failure of this project to protect, let alone benefit, Ugandans should inform supervision in all sectors and regions going forward. We believe that the Bank must strengthen its role in supervising and monitoring its projects to ensure that the poor are protected in the Bank's work. Any actions by the Bank that would weaken its oversight could undermine support for the institution.
Additionally, the Bank has long faced criticism, including from its own staff, for a culture that too often places the volume of lending above concerns for the effectiveness of that lending. Last October, the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade held a hearing on the multilateral development banks that explored this very problem, and a report by the Bank's Independent Evaluation Group notes how the ``pressure to lend'' has characterized the Bank's culture for decades, often at the expense of development outcomes. It is clear that such a culture can distract from the proper preparation and administration of projects, including monitoring and supervision, thus putting development at risk.
In the case of Uganda, the Bank clearly should have made supervision a higher priority. We hope that future beneficiaries, be they in Africa or elsewhere, will encounter more capable and responsive partners at the Bank.
Sincerely,Bill Huizenga,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.Gwen Moore,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, I think what America just heard from the last two speakers on the other side of the aisle was that, literally, the Democrats wanted the money to the World Bank but not the reforms. That is why they voted for the $3 million-plus to go into that account, that IDA account.
How cynical. I mean, funding of IDA is about as good as putting a Band-Aid on a car accident victim; right? It is not doing anything, ultimately, if there is such woeful inadequacy in trying to provide the true issues that need to be addressed.
So, the sexual abuse of underage Ugandans, not really interested in talking to you about that; harassment of female project staff, not really interested in talking about that on the other side of the aisle; deficient project safety that may have resulted in five fatalities, not interested in talking about that. So, when they rise, talking about how much they care about the poor and those who are underserved--forgive me if I am cynical, Mr. Chairman--it rings a bit hollow.
For the Bank, it got even worse. After sending this letter with Ms. Moore, we received a response that the Bank was undertaking cosmetic steps to improve their projects and their actions, such as creating a task force.
Again, forgive me for being a little cynical about the task force, but not only was the country manager associated with the Ugandan project not held accountable, he was promoted to country director for the Congo.
It still gets worse. Last November, we learned that the Bank was suspending yet another road project in the Congo due to allegations of sexual violence against women. The investigation is still underway today, Mr. Chairman. And the Bank has already admitted that it ignored repeated requests to the beneficiaries in the Congo to look at the other complaints, but we are beginning to see a theme: let's just keep the money flowing anyway.
Here is the thing: it was the same projects, the same people in place. I am just wondering why they--whether it is the ranking member or others who voted for this in subcommittee--refused to keep the Bank's feet to the fire.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Michigan an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I am just confused as to why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to hold the Bank's feet to the fire because we have known about these issues for several years. Task forces haven't been sufficient; rhetoric hasn't been sufficient. We need real accountability in the Bank, and we need it now. It needs to be initiated immediately, and then it needs to be maintained and institutionalized.
So I thank my friend from Kentucky for taking this commonsense approach and for demanding that the World Bank live up to its commitments to the poor, whether they are in Africa or in other places in the world.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3326.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
Today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3326, the World Bank Accountability Act of 2017.
Let me start by stating how important our Nation's contributions are to the World Bank's International Development Association, IDA. Those funds support the largest source of development finance for the world's poorest nations, including those in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. That is why, at the committee level, I voted in favor.
Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that funding the World Bank's development finance for poor nations represented America's highest ideals and interests. And, naturally, I would support a bill like this, but we had agreed that it wasn't the last word, that we would work and there would be additions thereto and/or subtractions in reviewing the bill.
In my estimation, looking at the bill, it also cedes too much authority to the executive, and those concerns have not been addressed in the final bill. For me, particularly in light of this administration's statements just a few days ago, it is troubling that it could be misused by this administration.
As written, the President, who has indicated a complete disdain for poor nations and people of color, could withhold foreign assistance if the World Bank does not conform to his administration's policies. It would be a mistake to allow the President to coerce the World Bank to fit his flawed world view, especially this President whose world view is inconsistent with America's past leadership around the globe, and that is whether it was a Democrat or Republican President.
Furthermore, the procedures in this bill do little to rebuild the world's faith in our Nation because we are having a problem with all of our allies, particularly the poor nations of the world, as to where we stand.
So, clearly, our vision, this Nation, has deteriorated under the current administration. Under this bill, our Nation could lose further credibility around the world during a time when countries, especially our allies, are uncertain about where our country stands on fundamental democratic values.
Ultimately, the procedures in this bill could punish millions of children and the vulnerable families in Africa, Latin America, and Asia who could go without food and basic resources.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from New York an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, since we know of the President and his will to withdraw from multilateral organizations and not work with others and just work by himself, we know what his position is. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3326.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), the vice chairman of Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3326, the World Bank Accountability Act. I would like to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade, Mr. Andy Barr, for his hard work on this piece of legislation and for his leadership on this important issue.
H.R. 3326 passed through the Financial Services Committee unanimously, with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 60-0.
Mr. Chair, right now, the World Bank's International Development Association, IDA, is an irresponsible benefactor for the world's neediest nations. At the core of my concerns within the World Bank, I take great issue with the Bank's offering employee incentives for approving new loans. The Bank, itself, has even documented that they harvest a culture that encourages loan volume rather than approval based on merit and approval based on need.
H.R. 3326 will help eliminate these illogical incentives at the World Bank that prioritize pushing money out the door rather than delivering authentic and helpful solutions.
In addition to mass lending from the Bank, careless lending is equally disconcerting and has made it easier for corrupt regimes to abuse their citizens and exploit the money for terrorism-related efforts. To address this issue, H.R. 3326 ensures that the World Bank cannot approve funds for a country that has been classified by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism, and it demands that the U.S. decline Bank loans to countries that knowingly fail to impose U.N. Security Council sanctions against the North Korean regime.
Additionally, this bill will encourage improvements within the World Bank by withholding up to 30 percent of future appropriations for the World Bank's IDA until the Treasury reports that the Bank has undertaken meaningful reforms in order to combat corruption, strengthen management accountability, and undermine violent extremism. By passing this legislation, we require the World Bank to put more faith in free enterprise as opposed to corrupt regimes that abuse the poor.
If the World Bank is serious about helping those who need it most, it should make certain that borrowing governments are committed to the welfare of their citizens. The World Bank has been slipping through the cracks far too long, and it is time to implement meaningful and lasting reforms.
Once again, I commend Representative Barr for introducing this necessary legislation. I encourage the House to follow the Financial Services Committee's lead by passing H.R. 3326.
In God we trust.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), the senior member of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3326 as it currently stands.
This is a disappointment to me. I, like many of my colleagues, originally voted to support this legislation in committee, with the understanding that both sides of the aisle would continue to work to allay the concerns that elements of this bill would give the Trump administration new and disruptive tools that would likely be used to the detriment of the World Bank's mission and our relationships with other countries.
There was an understanding to negotiate changes, but this legislation we will be voting on today does not reflect that promise. In light of that failure, my colleague, Gwen Moore, offered an amendment that would have set aside our concerns, but this amendment was not made in order, so we will not be voting on that either.
This bill does have elements that are important to our country's obligation to some of the poorest countries in the world. The World Bank provides grants and highly concessional loans through the International Development Association, the IDA, to the world's 77 poorest countries. This money goes a long way towards raising the standard of living, public health, and economic growth for the 450 million people who live there.
Since World War II, the United States has stood as a strong partner and a leader in the multilateral work to improve the quality of life around the world. Our success has relied on the diligent support of American lawmakers, diplomats, and groups around the world that work closely with allies and partner organizations throughout the world to provide assistance in times of great crisis.
But our confidence that this administration's broad discretion to defund the IDA--provided in the bill we will be voting on--would not be abused, frankly, was not improved by the President's recent racist remarks last week.
We are constantly reminded of the continuing importance of this mission and the need to pledge our support to the poorest countries in the world, to offer aid for the neediest individuals. Time after time, however, the Trump administration has shown itself incapable of using the resources that Congress gives it to work in constructive ways within multilateral organizations, instead, alienating our allies and undermining our country's reputation and mission. While I support this legislation's authorization of $3.29 billion for multilateral development efforts for these countries, the poorly conceived and defined conditions in this legislation make it impossible to support.
Any withholding of U.S. contributions to IDA is a serious action that would have devastating consequences. It would punish millions of children and other vulnerable groups in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, many of whom live in absolute poverty. It would also limit our ability to help individuals in famine-ridden parts of the world and refugees in fragile areas. They rely on humanitarian assistance for food and water.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, they rely on humanitarian assistance for food, water, and basic medical care and could face death without this assistance.
Many of the provisions in this bill, as written, would place conditions on U.S. contributions to IDA that, in the hands of the Trump administration, would not be an effective approach to reform and could very well undermine efforts to reduce poverty and promote growth. This would damage our country's historic and noble mission to lead the world in assisting the poorest countries with food, clean water, and medical help.
So, with reluctance, I have to encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and hope that it comes back to the floor with the bipartisan input that we were promised.
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
{time} 1530
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), another hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee who knows this bill passed 60-0 with no Democratic amendments offered.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of our committee and the chairman of our subcommittee for making great points and for pushing forward this great legislation.
The Members opposed to this legislation were for it before they were against it, as has been pointed out. But the other thing is the premise of the argument that is being made in opposition to this bill: that the United States should somehow give money, just spend the money, regardless of how poorly the World Bank will deploy this capital, regardless of whether they are effective or not in accomplishing the important mission of helping address poverty in some of the poorest nations in the world.
The specific purpose of this fund is to address poverty, and it has not done a very good job of doing that. Frankly, they have abused the funds they have had. So the premise would be that somehow we can just spend the money and trust that somehow they are going to get better.
Well, thankfully, when we were talking about it in committee and when we have talked about it on this side of the argument here--and I hope there is truly broad bipartisanship support for this bill to show to the American people we do expect a return on our dollars. We expect results for the money that comes to this body to spend on behalf of the United States of America.
I think the other premise is that somehow, unless we just send the money with no strings attached and no expectation of results, then we are not engaged in the world, that somehow we have withdrawn from the world and we don't care.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Because we do care, we are putting terms and conditions on the money. Because we do care about poverty and the results, we care that the World Bank operates, frankly, to accomplish its mission.
So while some would look for bigger, bolder reforms and maybe better use of U.S. tax dollars, we certainly expect some accountability for those results. This is a very measured objective in this bill, and I commend our committee for coming to this consensus 60-0 in committee.
Mr. Chairman, I hope for a similar outcome when we call the vote on the floor of the House.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the vice ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns with the way this bill has moved to the floor today.
Mr. Chairman, I support the bill's authorization of a U.S. contribution to the International Development Association, IDA, the part of the World Bank that helps the world's poorest countries through loans and grants to boost economic growth, to reduce inequality, and to improve the standard of living across the world.
The IDA provides assistance for basic healthcare, primary education, clean water and sanitation, and infrastructure.
I also support the idea that the bill would reestablish the U.S.' engagement on global economic cooperation. When this bill came up in the Financial Services Committee markup, as has been pointed out, I, along with many of my colleagues, expressed concerns over the bill making a U.S. contribution contingent on President Trump's determination that the World Bank is implementing these important reforms.
Our support for the bill was based on the understanding that those concerns would be addressed. So we supported the bill in good faith, hoping that, in fact, those issues would be addressed.
It has been pointed out that no Democratic amendments were offered in committee. We took on faith that those issues would be addressed.
Ms. Moore, a member of the committee on the Democratic side and a leader on this issue, offered an amendment, which the majority rejected in the Rules Committee and did not allow this House to vote on in order to--what we would say would be--improve the legislation. The amendment was not even made in order.
We support good governance and accountability, but those goals ought to be advanced on their own merits. Allowing President Trump to make the determination to withhold money from these countries based on his interpretation as to whether they have met his standard was a bridge too far for many of us.
The nature of the reforms outlined in the bill give some pause when we consider the recent actions and the recent words. It is impossible for any of us to, first of all, erase the hateful comments made by the President of the United States in reference to countries such as those that benefit from the work of the IDA.
So setting aside for a moment the concerns that members of the committee addressed--and this happens from time to time in committee, let's not pretend that it doesn't, where there are concerns that we decide we will address as the bill goes forward. Very often those are worked out. When they are not, we are not going to be put in the position as members of the committee of having to say: Well, that never happened.
It did happen.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Culberson). The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I understand we may come to different conclusions ultimately on how the bill comes to the floor, and Members ought to feel free to vote their conscience, but it is not the case that we did not express those concerns with the hope that they would be addressed before the legislation moved to the floor.
Nobody saw it as a perfect bill, unless, of course, those individuals were not listening to the issues being raised by Democratic Members during the debate in committee.
Mr. Chairman, I will end with this: when the President of the United States, just in recent days, uses vulgar and hateful terms to depict entire populations, many of whom live in countries that are the principal beneficiaries and people who themselves are the principal beneficiaries of this work, I have a very difficult time granting authority to that same administration to make a determination as to whether those countries are worthy of the help that the United States would offer.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds again to say it is an interesting narrative being told by the minority, but they offered no amendments, voted for the bill 60-0. We have heard nothing for 6 months until last Friday, the first time they decided to articulate a specific concern about a bill they had already supported.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the majority whip of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I thank our chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Barr from Kentucky, for bringing this bill, H.R. 3326, to the floor today because this is precisely what the American people want out of their government in Washington, D.C.: accountability.
Mr. Chairman, our constituents ask us all the time: Do you monitor the money that you send and spend around the world to further America's interests?
There are always a lot of people just kind of looking around. And how do we verify that?
Well, Mr. Chairman, here is an opportunity to verify that. This important piece of legislation would require the World Bank to implement real incentives, particularly through staff evaluation standards, that prioritize antipoverty results and capable project management over just the volume of loans they produce. It is that classic management expertise, quality over quantity.
Of course we want poverty eradicated. The taxpayers of this country wouldn't vote for us to approve spending like this if it wasn't done right to further America's interests around the world and to alleviate poverty around the world.
If the World Bank is serious about that, then it would defend the poorest's freedoms more vigorously. In other words, Mr. Chairman, no reforms like we propose, then poverty is not eradicated; the poor are not helped.
So H.R. 3326 insists on greater efforts by the World Bank to fight corruption in its projects. Just because the World Bank may have to work in corrupt environments does not mean it needs to add to the graft by pouring money in it for the taking. No one is for that. That is why the vote was 60-0.
That is why the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) was so supportive of this in our subcommittee. It withholds appropriations until the World Bank raises the quality of its work, raises the quality of its forensic audits, which are designed to unmask the systemic corruption we find in the Third World, inadvertently or advertently supported by the efforts of the World Bank.
We are tired of it. That is why, on a bipartisanship basis, we support the foreign policy goals contained in H.R. 3326.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, Mr. Barr, for his thoughtful work to implement this. These are needed changes. These are bipartisanship changes. These improve transparency, end corruption, better spend our taxpayer resources, and demand accountability of the World Bank, which is notoriously unaccountable. I thank Mr. Barr and I thank Mr. Hensarling for their efforts.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Kihuen), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. KIHUEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to briefly speak about H.R. 3326, the World Bank Accountability Act, which the House is voting on this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, last summer, I joined my Democratic and Republican colleagues in supporting H.R. 3326 in the Financial Services Committee to authorize the United States to participate in replenishing the International Development Association, the IDA.
However, Democrats made it clear during consideration of this bill in committee that our support depended on changes to certain provisions. Specifically, we believe that prohibitions in the bill put the U.S. funding at risk and make it too easy for the administration to cut off funding for vulnerable nations.
Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that my Republican colleagues have chosen not to uphold our agreement and address these concerns. Given the recent events and remarks by President Trump degrading developing nations and the people who live in them, we should be concerned about giving the administration this power.
It is critical that Congress provide moral leadership and demonstrate to the world that the United States will not ignore or punish countries that are struggling with poverty or conflict. We must send a strong signal that the United States Congress respects people of all backgrounds and nationalities.
Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, let me say that Democrats did view this legislation as an important marker of international engagement from our committee, which has not in recent times demonstrated a great deal of interest in global economic leadership. We viewed this measure as an opportunity to reinforce the importance of global economic cooperation. Given that, it seemed to us a mistake to then reject the possibility of cooperation with our own Republican colleagues. So we supported the bill for that reason as well, and I regret we couldn't come to an accommodation.
{time} 1545
On another matter, let me also say that I won't question the sincerity of my Republican colleagues' commitment to reforming the World Bank, but I do wonder why, if these reforms are as pressing and as urgent and as critical as they say, why did they take so long?
Chairman Hensarling has been at the helm of our committee for over 5 years, and, during that time, the Obama administration requested legislation to authorize U.S. participation in three other replenishments, including the previous IDA-17. But the committee refused to act on any of these requests, not only shirking its oversight responsibility, but also missing a number of opportunities to press for reforms which presumably were as urgent then as they are now.
In fact, in November of 2014, near the end of the 113th Congress, I wrote to Chairman Hensarling urging him to turn his attention to the three pending authorization requests before Congress adjourned. I made a number of arguments in support of the multilateral development banks, the MDBs, which apparently did not persuade the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I include that letter in the Record.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC, November 19, 2014.Hon. Jeb Hensarling,Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hensarling: I write to urge you to turn your attention before Congress adjourns to the Administration's requests for authorizations for U.S. participation in the replenishments of three concessional windows at the multilateral development banks (MDBs)--namely, the World Bank's International Development Association (IDA-17), the Asian Development Fund (AsDF-11), and the African Development Fund (AfDF-13).
As you know, these concessional facilities provide grants and low-cost development financing to the world's poorest countries. They support projects that combat hunger and poverty while promoting private-sector growth and global stability. Well-designed multilateral aid programs help create more equitable societies and more stable democracies. It is also crucial to U.S. interests that developing nations continue to grow. Exports have been the most rapidly growing share of our economy, and exports to developing countries have been an important part of that.
America is also fighting a war on terrorism, and while the forces that give rise to terrorism are complex, poverty and despair provide a fertile feeding ground. Moreover, U.S. contributions to the development banks also provide tremendous value for the money. Every dollar we commit is leveraged many times over by contributions from other donor nations, as well as from the internal resources of the institutions themselves.
Today, we have another very important, and potentially far-reaching, reason why the U.S. should promptly meet its commitments to the MDBs. The last few years have unfortunately seen a weakening of the commitment to multilateralism by the United States, which has led to widespread doubt about U.S. leadership on global economic governance.
In response, a number of developing countries, led by China, have begun to act independently, with initiatives viewed as the first serious, coordinated effort to reshape the global financial architecture and challenge western dominance in the world economy.
Last month, China announced an agreement with 21 other developing countries to create a multilateral development bank called the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which will focus on financing infrastructure development projects in the Asia-Pacific region. A clear rival to the Asian Development Bank, the AIIB will be led by China, its largest shareholder, and headquartered in Beijing.
Separately, in July, the so-called BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) announced plans to launch an international development bank of their own, which they hope will rival the strength and influence of the World Bank. The ``New Development Bank,'' as it is called, will be headquartered in Shanghai and focus on infrastructure investment throughout the developing world.
Development experts agree that global infrastructure needs in developing countries is tremendous, and there are many who welcome the contribution that the new development banks can make in helping to build sustainable economic infrastructure both in Asia and elsewhere. But these new institutions also reflect frustration by the world's major emerging economies with the slow pace of governance reforms at the Bretton Woods institutions, especially the IMF. In fact, the now-stalled agreement to realign the quota shares at the IMF, negotiated by the Bush Administration, was a critical effort to preserve its legitimacy and keep emerging economies firmly anchored in the multilateral system that the U.S. helped design.
U.S. inaction in meeting its commitments to the MDBs, as well as its refusal to ratify IMF governance reforms, is what led, in large part, to the creation of these new institutions that will increasingly pose a challenge to the global financial order created by western powers after World War II. We should be mindful that a world in which countries such as China and Russia are acting outside of the established international financial institutions, or other global bodies, is one that could drift beyond our control. Moreover, it remains to be seen what values these new rising powers will articulate and promote in their vision of a new global economy.
I believe this makes U.S. leadership at the multilateral development institutions today more important than ever. They are directed at some of the most central challenges faced by the U.S.--strategic, economic, political and moral--and, in many ways, they are often our most effective means for responding to those challenges.
I strongly urge you to take prompt action to affirm U.S. support for, and U.S. leadership at, these institutions, which have served both U.S. interests and the global public good for so many years.
Sincerely,
Maxine Waters,
Ranking Member.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Nevertheless, here we are, at a historic moment when U.S. credibility on the global stage is in serious question.
We have the option of choosing to lead and show the community of nations that the hateful words of the President will not be followed by misguided and enabling actions by Congress.
Today, I speak on behalf of the world's poorest countries and their people. Today, I stand with Africa, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and its misguided, cynical approach to multilateralism.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation as a signal to the world that Trump doctrine is not the American doctrine or a broader sign of American unreliability and indifference.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to tell you what is being said about us from some of these countries and around the world.
From Haiti, Trump comments saying that they were ``based on stereotypes.''
``In the spirit of the people of Haiti, we feel in the statements, if they were made, the President was either misinformed or miseducated about Haiti and its people.''
From Laurent Lamothe, the former Haitian Prime Minister: ``It shows a lack of respect,'' he says, ``and ignorance never seen before in the recent history of the U.S. by any President.''
Let's see what Jessie Duarte, Deputy Secretary General of the African National Congress, has to say. He said, ``Ours is not a s----hole country, neither is Haiti or any other country in distress.''
From the Government of El Salvador: ``We have addressed a note of protest to the Government of the United States highlighting in this document also the high value of Salvadorans.''
From Salvador Sanchez, President of El Salvador:
The statement by the President of the United States hits the dignity of the Salvadoran people. El Salvador demands within the framework of the principles governing relations among states respect for the dignity of their noble and courageous people.
Hugo Martinez, El Salvador's Foreign Minister, said:
``It's always been a foreign policy priority of our government to fight for the respect and dignity of our countrymen independent of the immigration status.
``Our countrymen are hardworking people who are always contributing to the countries where they are living and, of course, also to our country.''
And according to the State Department, Senegal also summoned the U.S. Ambassador for an explanation. And so Macky Sall, President of Senegal, said: ``I am shocked by the words of President Trump on Haiti and Africa. I reject them and condemn them vigorously. Africa and the Black race deserves the respect and consideration of all.''
And then there is John Mahama, former President of Ghana. He said:
``Africans and Haitians come from s----hole countries? Isn't Trump demonstrating that he is nothing but a racist and pursuing a policy of
`Make America White Again'? I congratulate Botswana for showing the way. Our AU Presidents must respond strongly to this insult.''
I could go on and on about comments that are coming from our friends and our allies. Some of them may be poor countries but who have had respect for us in the past and who have stood with us in times of adversity.
I absolutely know that this country has demonstrated, time and time again, that we are humanitarians, that we understand the importance of giving support to the poorest countries in this world, and they appreciate us so much. They honor us, they have respected us, and they have done everything to show that they will stand with us when they need us to do that.
And here we are at a time when we are willing to put them at risk with a piece of legislation where we have some Members on the opposite side of the aisle who think they know better than the World Bank, who think they know better than all of the Members, Democrats and Republicans, who have worked together for years in our support of the World Bank; in our support of giving support to the 77 poorest countries in the world; and giving our support to the 450 million people, many of them who are living in abject poverty, many of them who don't know where the next meal is going to come from, and many of them whose lives are at risk every day.
How can we, the richest country in the world, turn our nose up at them, talk about somehow they are not credible, talk about somehow they are all corrupt? I reject it, and I ask the Members of this Congress to vote ``no'' on this misplaced, misguided piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members that remarks in debate may not engage in personalities toward the President, including by repeating remarks carried elsewhere that would be improper if spoken in the Member's own words.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 4\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First, Mr. Chairman, let me get the whole process debate out of the way. Anybody who is watching this debate has got to be scratching their head at the proposition that every single one of my Democratic colleagues who come to the floor to denounce H.R. 3326 have already voted for it. They voted for it 60-0 in committee.
Mr. Chairman, do you know how many amendments they offered in that markup, their opportunity to refine the legislation, their opportunity to improve the legislation, their opportunity to put their imprimatur on the legislation? Do you know how many amendments they offered? Zero. Zero amendments were offered by the minority who now claim that somehow they were cut out of the process.
For 6 months, we have been waiting, waiting to bring this bill, waiting to hear about these improvements, and only three legislative days ago did, finally, the Democrats deign to offer any new improvement to this bill.
So I think, Mr. Chairman, she doth protest too much. And now what I don't understand, Mr. Chairman, is how my Democratic colleagues can defend some of these rogue regimes and some of the activities of the World Bank.
Dr. Jean Ensminger, Edie and Lew Wasserman professor of social science at Caltech, testified that there is corruption throughout World Bank projects in remote areas of Kenya near the Somali border.
She said: ``As I dug more deeply, it became apparent that corruption had been entrenched in the project since 2000.'' And we are talking about the poorest of the poor.
She goes on to say:
As the board was about to renew the project for 5 years, finally, the internal investigation showed that 62 percent of the transactions were fraudulent.
Except my friends on the other side of the aisle: It doesn't matter. Don't worry about the fraud. Just send them U.S. taxpayer money. It doesn't matter that the poor aren't actually helped. Just send them money because it makes us feel good.
Sasha Chavkin from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists testified--and I alluded to this earlier about the forced displacement of the poorest of the poor caused by projects financed by the World Bank.
He went on to testify: ``We found, instead, that the bank repeatedly funded governments that not only failed to adequately resettle communities, but, in some cases, were accused of human rights abuses such as rape, murder, and violent evictions associated with bank projects. We found in several cases that the World Bank continued to bankroll these borrowers even after evidence of these abuses came to light.''
We have a bill to reform that, to make sure the poor are actually helped, to ensure that instead of taxpayer money going to rape, murder, and violent evictions, that it actually goes to help the poor. And why my Democratic colleagues who were once for it are now against it is beyond me.
We certainly know about the infamous World Bank project, road project, in western Uganda where it was associated with an increase in sexual exploitation of young girls. Teenage girls were being sexually harassed on the way to school. Many were sexually exploited or wagged by project workers, and once this became known, the World Bank denied it.
So we have the simple bill to say that the U.S. taxpayer will demand accountability. We will demand reforms. People should be aghast at how this money has been spent at the World Bank. It is not how much money you spend. It is how you spend the money. And if we want reforms, we are going to have some accountability, something that my friends on the other side of the aisle used to support, and they should be ashamed that they are not supporting it today.
We must all support H.R. 3326. I very much commend the gentleman from Kentucky for bringing this valuable piece of legislation to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows:
H.R. 3326
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``World Bank Accountability Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS UNTIL CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE
MET.
(a) Institutional Reforms.--
(1) In general.--With respect to each of fiscal years 2018 through 2023, in addition to any amounts withheld from disbursement under subsection (b), 15 percent of the amounts provided in appropriations Acts for the International Development Association for the fiscal year--
(A) shall be withheld from disbursement until the conditions of paragraph (2) or (3) are satisfied; and
(B)(i) shall be disbursed after the conditions of paragraph
(2) are satisfied; and
(ii) may be disbursed after the conditions of paragraph (3) are satisfied
(2) Initial conditions.--The conditions of this paragraph are satisfied with respect to the amounts provided in appropriations Acts for a fiscal year if, in the fiscal year, the Secretary of the Treasury reports to the appropriate congressional committees that the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development--
(A) is implementing institutional incentives, including through formal staff evaluation criteria, that prioritize poverty reduction, development outcomes, and capable project management over the volume of the Bank's lending and grantmaking;
(B) is taking steps to address the management failures described in Inspection Panel Investigation Report 106710-UG, and to prevent their recurrence in countries that are eligible for World Bank support; and
(C) is taking measures to strengthen its management of trust funds, with the goal of increasing the accountability of the trust funds for poverty reduction and development outcomes.
(3) Subsequent conditions.--The conditions of this paragraph are satisfied if the Secretary of the Treasury reports to the appropriate congressional committees, in each of the 3 fiscal years most recently preceding the fiscal year in which the report is made, that the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development has instituted the measures described in paragraph (2) of this subsection and the measures described in subsection (b)(2).
(b) Governance and Anticorruption Reforms.--
(1) In general.--With respect to each of fiscal years 2018 through 2023, in addition to any amounts withheld from disbursement under subsection (a), 15 percent of the amounts provided in appropriations Acts for the International Development Association for the fiscal year--
(A) shall be withheld from disbursement until the conditions of paragraph (2) or (3) are satisfied; and
(B)(i) shall be disbursed after the conditions of paragraph
(2) are satisfied; and
(ii) may be disbursed after the conditions of paragraph (3) are satisfied
(2) Initial conditions.--The conditions of this paragraph are satisfied with respect to the amounts provided in appropriations Acts for a fiscal year if, in the fiscal year, the Secretary of the Treasury reports to the appropriate congressional committees that the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development--
(A) is emphasizing in appropriate operational policies, directives, and country strategies its support for secure property rights, due process of law, and economic freedom as essential conditions for sustained poverty reduction in World Bank borrowing countries;
(B)(i) in the preceding fiscal year, has not approved any loans or grants assistance by the Bank to a country designated by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism; and
(ii) is strengthening the ability of Bank-funded projects to undermine violent extremism;
(C) is taking steps to conduct forensic audits of projects receiving assistance from the Bank, increase the number of the forensic audits, and strengthen the capacity of the Bank's Integrity Vice Presidency, and that not less than 50 percent of the forensic audits initiated by the Bank in each fiscal year are of projects randomly selected from among International Development Association borrowing countries; and
(D) is taking measures to detect and minimize corruption in all World Bank projects involving development policy lending.
(3) Subsequent conditions.--The conditions of this paragraph are satisfied if the Secretary of the Treasury reports to the appropriate congressional committees, in each of the 3 fiscal years most recently preceding the fiscal year in which the report is made that the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development has instituted the measures described in paragraph (2) of this subsection and the measures described in subsection (a)(2).
(c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committees on Financial Services and on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Foreign Relations and on Appropriations of the Senate.
SEC. 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
The Chairman of the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Policies shall include in the report required by section 1701 of the International Financial Institutions Act for each of fiscal years 2018 through 2023 a detailed description of the actions undertaken by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in the fiscal year covered by the report to institute the measures described in subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2) of section 2 of this Act.
SEC. 4. OPPOSITION TO WORLD BANK ASSISTANCE FOR GOVERNMENT
THAT FAILS TO IMPLEMENT OR ENFORCE MEASURES
REQUIRED UNDER AN APPLICABLE UNITED NATIONS
SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION.
The Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. 286 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 73. OPPOSITION TO ASSISTANCE FOR GOVERNMENT THAT FAILS
TO IMPLEMENT OR ENFORCE MEASURES REQUIRED UNDER
AN APPLICABLE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION.
``The Secretary of the Treasury should instruct the United States Executive Director at the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to use the voice and vote of the United States to oppose the provision of assistance to the government of a borrowing country of the International Development Association if the President of the United States determines that the government has knowingly failed to implement or enforce sanctions required under an applicable United Nations Security Council resolution (as defined in section 3 of the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 (Public Law 114-122; 22 U.S.C. 9202)) that is in effect.''.
SEC. 5. EIGHTEENTH REPLENISHMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION; REDUCTION FROM IDA-17
AUTHORIZED LEVEL.
The International Development Association Act (22 U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 30. EIGHTEENTH REPLENISHMENT.
``(a) Contribution Authority.--The United States Governor of the International Development Association may contribute on behalf of the United States $3,291,030,000 to the eighteenth replenishment of the resources of the Association, subject to obtaining the necessary appropriations.
``(b) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations.--In order to pay for the contribution provided for in subsection
(a), there are authorized to be appropriated, without fiscal year limitation, $3,291,030,000 for payment by the Secretary of the Treasury.''.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House Report 115-518. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Norman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part A of House Report 115-518.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 6, line 2, after ``economic freedom'' insert ``, including reduction of government barriers to entrepreneurship,''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 693, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support my amendment to H.R. 3326, the World Bank Accountability Act. I also want to thank the chairman of the full committee and Andy Barr, who is the subcommittee chairman, for introducing this legislation and working with me on this amendment.
The purpose of the underlying bill is simple: to ensure that the World Bank is effective in supporting projects abroad that work and actually reduce poverty. One aspect of the bill requires that the U.S. may withhold part of its funding from the World Bank unless the Treasury Department reports that the World Bank is emphasizing proven antipoverty solutions such as secure property rights, due process under the law, and economic freedom.
My amendment would make a small and positive change to the bill which clarifies that the World Bank should also focus on reducing government barriers to entrepreneurship in addition to the other requirements.
{time} 1600
This simple modification is important for a couple of reasons:
First, multiple studies have found that entrepreneurship is an essential part of reducing poverty abroad because it gives people the ability to use their skills and God-given talents to foster innovation and create jobs in their individual communities. Foreign governments often create barriers to entrepreneurship through excessive fees, burdensome licensing requirements, and lengthy permitting processes.
Second, this modification is consistent with United States foreign policy, which, in part, is to promote market solutions to international poverty. This will ensure that individuals will have the capability to pull themselves out of poverty without excessive barriers put up by their government, ultimately improve the efficiency of United States development assistance and improve the economic situation in impoverished nations.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I appreciate the committee's willingness to work with me on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Palmer). Is the gentlewoman opposed to the amendment?
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Yes, I am opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
While the amendment speaks to reducing government barriers to entrepreneurship, the real-world impact of adopting this amendment would be to enlist the World Bank in the business of really what they are going for, diminishing labor standards.
The World Bank's prior ``doing business'' report is a prime example of why we must reject this amendment. The World Bank should be encouraging sustainable and inclusive growth, not policies that diminish workers' rights. So I would urge all Members to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his very thoughtful amendment. His amendment addresses an issue dear to our heart, and that is economic freedom. By making the bill even more explicit in its support for entrepreneurship, his contribution makes a good piece of legislation better. Still, it is important to remember that the poor, wherever they may be in the world, can succeed if their government lets them, and that is a principle we should all wholeheartedly support. I hope the World Bank will subscribe to it as well.
I would just say one other thing about the debate that has transpired here today. This is hardworking American taxpayers' generosity. It is their charity. It is the American taxpayers trying to help people who live in impoverished countries.
It is unfair to hardworking taxpayers and it dishonors the generosity of the American people to not hold the World Bank accountable.
I applaud the gentleman, Mr. Norman, for his amendment, which will unleash entrepreneurship in these lesser developed countries.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Connolly
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in part A of House Report 115-518.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 7, line 22, insert ``, to institute the measures described in section 203 of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (8 U.S.C. 1375c), and to ensure that persons to whom a G-5 visa
(as defined in such section 203) has been issued and who are employed by a diplomat or staff of the Bank are informed of their rights and protections under such section 203'' before the period.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 693, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an anti-human trafficking amendment to the World Bank Accountability Act.
The chairman of the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Policies is already required by law to submit to the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, and the President of the United States an annual report on the effectiveness and operations of international financial institutions as well as other goals for development assistance and financing already specified by Congress.
The base text of the World Bank Accountability Act already includes several additions to the chairman's annual report. This amendment would make one addition to that report. The amendment would require the chairman to report on the detailed actions undertaken by the World Bank to institute certain protections for G-5 nonimmigrant visa holders and inform these individuals of the rights afforded to them by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. That legislation was sponsored by my good friend and former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Howard Berman.
G-5 nonimmigrant visas are reserved for foreign domestic employees of diplomats and international organizations, such as the World Bank.
Prior to the enactment of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, these foreign domestic employees had very few protections.
However, the bill enacted several important reforms on how we prevent abuse and trafficking of foreign domestic employees in the United States on G-5 nonimmigrant visas.
The law mandated that all such visa holders have an employer-employee contract that includes, inter alia:
One, an agreement by the employer to abide by all Federal, State, and local laws;
Two, information on the frequency and form of payment, work duties, weekly work hours, holidays, sick days, and vacation days; and
Three, have an agreement by the employer not to withhold the passport, employment contract, or other personal property and documents of the employee.
Among other things, the law also permits these foreign domestic employees to remain legally and work in the United States while seeking legal redress against their employers, as required.
As a Representative for Northern Virginia, I count among the residents of my district many of the hardworking and dedicated employees of the World Bank who work in offices throughout the D.C. metropolitan area. As a result, I also represent the foreign domestic employees of those who work in the World Bank and such institutions. Unfortunately, sometimes, some of these individuals have been subject to abuse by their employers.
Since 2010, there have been at least five Federal civil trafficking cases in the United States involving the World Bank, and a majority of those cases were filed in the Eastern District of Virginia. All of these cases resulted in either a settlement, a default judgment for the plaintiff, or a guilty plea--all of them.
According to the GAO report on household workers for foreign diplomats, ``The people who come to the United States on G-5 visas are among the most vulnerable who enter our borders legally. They are often poor, uneducated, and unfamiliar with their rights under United States law. If they find themselves in an abusive situation, their ability to hold their employers accountable can be limited, particularly if their employers hold full diplomatic immunity and inviolability.''
According to a 2017 survey, 85 percent of domestic worker trafficking survivors report having pay withheld or being paid well below minimum wage, in violation of our own domestic laws. Seventy-eight percent have had employers threaten to report them for deportation if they complained. Sixty-two percent report having their passports or other identification documents taken away or withheld illegally by their employers.
We must empower all individuals who find themselves victims of abuse or human trafficking and provide them with a way out. Too often their plight is obscured by their vulnerability and their susceptibility to these kinds of threats.
I hope this amendment helps shed more light on one corner of this problem and offers victims currently suffering under an abusive employer a way out of the shadows. This is a matter of human decency, human freedom, and a reaffirmation of human autonomy.
Mr. Chairman, I urge its adoption. I thank the chairman and his staff and the ranking member and her staff for their cooperation fashioning this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his efforts, and I am willing to accept his amendment.
The language he proposes would ensure that the Treasury keeps Congress updated on the World Bank's efforts to ensure that certain visa holders at the World Bank are aware of the provisions of current law.
This addition to the bill is unobjectionable. I am pleased to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Barr
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in part A of House Report 115-518.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, line 13, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The Secretary''.
Page 8, line 13, strike ``should'' and insert ``shall''.
Page 8, line 16, insert ``financial'' before ``assist-''.
Page 8, line 17, after ``ance'' insert ``, other than assistance to support basic human needs,''.
Page 8, line 24, strike the close quotation marks and the period that follows.
Page 8, after line 24, insert the following:
``(b) Waiver.--The President may waive subsection (a) for not more than 180 days at a time with respect to a foreign government if the President reports to the Congress that--
``(1) the failure described in subsection (a) by the foreign government is due exclusively to a lack of capacity of the foreign government;
``(2) the foreign government is taking effective steps to prevent the failure from recurring; or
``(3) the waiver is vital to the national security interests of the United States.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 693, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a straightforward amendment that would simply make this bill's language more consistent with legislation the House has already passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority.
As reported, H.R. 3326 calls on the Treasury Department to oppose World Bank assistance to IDA countries that knowingly fail to enforce U.N. Security Council sanctions against North Korea.
As the U.N. Panel of Experts has concluded, lax enforcement, including in developing countries eligible for IDA support, has significantly undermined the effectiveness of U.N. sanctions against the Kim regime.
All my amendment does is change the word ``should'' to ``shall,'' making U.S. opposition to World Bank assistance for those countries mandatory. At the same time, the amendment adds Presidential waiver authority so that the administration can exempt countries that may be facing limits to their government capacity or which are making an effort to correct their enforcement failures. There is also a national interest waiver included in this provision.
The Financial Services Committee has already passed this stronger mandatory provision in the Otto Warmbier North Korea Nuclear Sanctions Act, which I am proud to have sponsored along with my subcommittee ranking member, Ms. Moore from Wisconsin. Ms. Moore's input was important to making this provision both tough and flexible enough to incentivize foreign countries to work harder on sanctions enforcement.
Our committee passed the Otto Warmbier sanctions bill unanimously, and it passed the full House in October by a vote of 415-2. Again, this is a minor change to align this bill's language with a policy that the House has already endorsed on a bipartisan basis.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues' support.
Before I conclude, I do want to just make a general comment about the wisdom of this legislation and the approach to enforce accountability on the World Bank. We heard some of the arguments from our friends on the other side of the aisle--our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I would just say, on a bipartisan basis, we are the guardians and the custodians of the American taxpayers' charity. We are the guardians of their hard-earned income that they pay in the form of taxes to their government, and they ask us to be wise stewards of those tax dollars.
These taxpayers work hard to pay their taxes. So when that money comes to Washington, they expect when we are fighting poverty in Third World countries with their tax dollars that we make it work because the American people--and we all agree here--want to fight poverty in these Third World countries.
We want to make sure that these Third World countries are not either knowingly or unknowingly supporting circumventing these sanctions against North Korea.
We want to make sure that they are promoting economic freedom and actually helping people rise out of poverty and achieve their God-given potential in these countries that need our humanitarian assistance.
So for goodness' sake, let's support accountability at the World Bank so that we don't have rape, murder, and violent evictions associated with World Bank projects, which is what everybody knows the testimony has been in our oversight.
This is not about turning our backs on the poor. It is about standing up for the poor. It is about making sure that the money that our taxpayers are giving to the World Bank is actually helping alleviate poverty and not exacerbating the problems in these poor countries.
{time} 1615
If the Bank can't undertake the reforms in this bill--again, reforms that the minority supported--then, by definition, the Bank's money is not benefiting the poor. If it is not benefiting the poor, how could withholding a portion of it be punishing the poor?
For goodness' sake, let's honor the charity of the American taxpayers. Let's not dishonor it. Let's honor it by actually making reforms to the World Bank so that it can fulfill its important mission and not undermine its important antipoverty mission.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the distinguished chairman of the full committee.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, not only do I want to thank him for his leadership in providing accountability to the World Bank to ensure that the poorest of the poor are truly helped and that the hardworking, beleaguered taxpayer has his funds respected, but I also want to thank him for this amendment and his previous work to ensure that sanctions on one of the most dangerous regimes on the face of the planet, North Korea, are actually effective. We know the threat that North Korea presents to all of our constituents and our country.
So I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his leadership, and I urge the adoption of his amendment.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, though I do not intend to oppose it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, offered by the gentleman from Kentucky, Representative Barr, would make changes to section 4 of the underlying bill dealing with opposing World Bank assistance for governments that fail to enforce U.N. Security Council sanctions against North Korea.
These changes are welcome and would bring this section of the bill in line with a provision that was adopted on a bipartisan basis in the Financial Services Committee as part of our commitment in the Otto Warmbier North Korea Nuclear Sanctions Act.
Just as the bipartisan measure that was passed through our committee included a clearly defined waiver authority, the amendment offered by Representative Barr would add, in this same waiver, provisions to the underlying bill. In doing so, the amendment not only makes section 4 of the bill consistent with the approach used in other contexts, but, more importantly, it ensures that we allow the President to waive the withholding of assistance for countries that fall short in applying sanctions on North Korea when such failure is due exclusively to a lack of capacity of the foreign government and the foreign government is taking effective steps to prevent the failure from recurring.
While I do not believe the underlying bill should become law in its current form, I do believe we should take a consistent and thoughtful approach to cutting off World Bank assistance to the poorest countries that are unable to fulfill their U.N. Security Council obligations. This amendment would address this concern.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for giving credit to Ms. Moore for her work and her assistance with the work that was being done to deny North Korea any kind of assistance from any of our allies, as I understand it. This is not something that is done by the Republicans or the Democrats. This is truly bipartisan. We all feel the same way about North Korea, and we all feel that the sanctions should be honored. We all feel that no country, in particular those countries that we are supporting, in any way should do anything to give support to North Korea.
In saying that, let me also point out that we don't come to this floor with any kind of empty rhetoric, talking about all of those countries are corrupt and somehow all of these countries in Africa and other places that are very poor are somehow disregarding the fact that the United States is being of assistance to them. Most of them know that their lives oftentimes depend on our generosity. They love us and support us. They want to emulate us.
They get a little bit confused when we have people who charge them with being corrupt and irresponsible and noncaring and not having an appreciation for what the citizens of the United States are doing for them. That is not the kind of rhetoric that we need in order to enhance our posture or our image with our constituents and have them believe that we are saving them from these poor countries who are getting taxpayer money and don't care about them. That is not true.
I cringe when I hear that kind of rhetoric on the floor of Congress. I cringe when I hear us using our position, our influence, to send a message that somehow we don't trust, we don't believe, we don't honor, and we don't respect many of those very, very poor countries. We are talking about 77 of the poorest countries in the world.
You will see ads on television, from time to time, of nonprofit organizations that are trying to save the lives of little children who are dying from malnutrition. You see them every night, and they tell you: Send $21; send some money to this organization so we can save these children who are dying because they don't have clean drinking water, who are dying because they are victims of malaria, who are dying because they don't have any healthcare whatsoever, living practically outdoors. When we see these ads, many people are responding, joining in with their government to show our humanitarianism and helping the least of these.
I want us to take credit, but I want us be respectful. I want us not to join in calling names. I want us to say to the President of the United States: ``Don't keep doing this.'' I want to say to the Members on the opposite side of the aisle: ``You are better than this, and you don't need this for your reelection. You don't need this to send a message to your citizens that you are saving them from poor, corrupt countries.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Holding) having assumed the chair, Mr. Palmer, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3326) to increase accountability, combat corruption, and strengthen management effectiveness at the World Bank, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________
