[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 123 (Monday, July 30, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8843-H8855]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                DARFUR ACCOUNTABILITY AND DIVESTMENT ACT

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill (H.R. 180) to require the identification of companies 
that conduct business operations in Sudan, to prohibit United States 
Government contracts with such companies, and for other purposes, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows

                                H.R. 180

       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 ``Darfur Accountability and 
     Divestment Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) In the 108th Congress, the House of Representatives 
     adopted House Concurrent Resolution 467 on July 22, 2004, by 
     a unanimous vote of 422-0, which--
       (A) declares that the atrocities unfolding in the Darfur 
     region of Sudan are genocide;
       (B) declares that the Government of Sudan has violated the 
     Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of 
     Genocide;
       (C) urges the Administration to seriously consider 
     multilateral intervention to stop genocide in Darfur should 
     the United Nations Security Council fail to act; and
       (D) calls on the Administration to impose targeted 
     sanctions, including visa bans and the freezing of assets of 
     the Sudanese National Congress and affiliated business and 
     individuals directly responsible for the atrocities in 
     Darfur.
       (2) In the 109th Congress, the House of Representatives 
     passed H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 
     2006, on April 5, 2006, by a vote of 416-3, which--
       (A) appeals to the international community, including the 
     United Nations, the European Union, and the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization (NATO), to immediately mobilize 
     sufficient political, military, and financial resources to 
     support and expand the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS);
       (B) blocks assets and restricts travel of any individual 
     the President determines is responsible for acts of genocide, 
     war crimes, or crimes against humanity in the Darfur region 
     of Sudan; and
       (C) offers United States support for the International 
     Criminal Court's efforts to prosecute those responsible for 
     acts of genocide in Darfur.
       (3) On September 9, 2004, former Secretary of State Colin 
     Powell stated before the Committee on Foreign Relations of 
     the Senate that genocide was being committed in the Darfur 
     region of Sudan and that the Government of Sudan and the 
     government-supported Janjaweed militias bear responsibility 
     for the genocide.
       (4) On September 21, 2004, President George W. Bush 
     affirmed the Secretary of State's finding in an address 
     before the United Nations General Assembly, stating that the 
     world is witnessing terrible suffering and horrible crimes in 
     the Darfur region of Sudan, crimes the Government of the 
     United States has concluded are genocide.
       (5) On May 29, 2007, President George W. Bush affirmed that 
     the Government of Sudan is complicit in the bombing, murder, 
     and rape of innocent civilians in Darfur and again declared 
     that these actions rightfully constitute genocide.
       (6) Although the Government of the United States currently 
     bans United States companies from conducting business 
     operations in Sudan, millions of Americans are inadvertently 
     supporting the Government of Sudan by investing in foreign 
     companies that conduct business operations in Sudan that 
     disproportionately benefit the Sudanese regime in Khartoum.
       (7) Several States and governmental entities, through 
     legislation and other means, have expressed their desire, or 
     are considering measures--
       (A) to divest any equity in, or to refuse to provide debt 
     capital to, certain companies that operate in Sudan;
       (B) to disassociate themselves and the beneficiaries of 
     their public pension and endowment funds from directly or 
     indirectly supporting the Darfur genocide; and
       (C) to prohibit themselves from entering into or renewing 
     contracts for the procurement of goods or services with 
     certain companies that have a direct investment in, or 
     conduct business operations in, Sudan
       (8) California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, 
     Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New 
     York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont have passed 
     legislation to divest State funds from companies that conduct 
     business operations in Sudan. Massachusetts, Michigan, North 
     Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Wisconsin 
     are considering legislation to divest State funds from 
     companies that conduct business operations in Sudan. 
     Arkansas, Connecticut, Maryland, and Ohio have passed non-
     binding divestment legislation with respect to Sudan.
       (9) Denver, Colorado, Los Angeles, California, Miami Beach, 
     Florida, New Haven, Connecticut, Newton, Massachusetts, 
     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 
     Providence, Rhode Island, and San Francisco, California have 
     passed legislation mandating divestment of city funds from 
     companies that conduct business operations in Sudan.
       (10) American University, Amherst College, Andover Newton 
     Theological School, Boston University, Bowdoin College, 
     Brandeis University, Brown University, Colby College, 
     Columbia University, Connecticut College, Cornell University, 
     Dartmouth College, Drew University, Duke University, Emory 
     University, Hampton University, Harvard University, Hendrix 
     College, Howard University, Lee University, Massachusetts 
     Institute of Technology, Middlebury College, Nazareth 
     College, Northwestern University, Oberlin College, Queen's 
     University, Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, Regis 
     University, Samford University, Seton Hall, Smith College, 
     Stanford University, Swarthmore College, Trinity College, 
     University of California, University of Colorado, University 
     of Connecticut, University of Denver, University of Illinois, 
     University of Maryland, University of Massachusetts, 
     University of Minnesota, University of Pennsylvania, 
     University of Rochester, University of Southern California, 
     University of Vermont, University of Virginia, University of 
     Washington, University of Wisconsin System, Vassar College, 
     Wellesley College, Wheaton College, Williams College, and 
     Yale University have divested their funds from or placed 
     restrictions on investment of their funds in certain 
     companies that conduct business operations in Sudan.
       (11) Divestment has proven effective in similar situations, 
     as in 1986, when State pension funds and university 
     endowments were divested from companies that conducted 
     business operations in South Africa, which was critical to 
     ending apartheid in that country, and by 1994, when the first 
     free elections in South Africa took place, a substantial 
     number of States, counties, cities, universities, and 
     colleges in the United States had adopted partial or total 
     divestment policies.
       (12) Economic pressure against the Government of Sudan has 
     been effective in pushing Sudan to cooperate with the United 
     States on counterterrorism efforts and in part in agreeing to 
     negotiations with the Sudan People's Liberation Army of South 
     Sudan which resulted in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 
     2005.
       (13) Congress acknowledges that divestment should be used 
     sparingly and under extraordinary circumstances. This Act is 
     based on unique circumstances, specifically, the 
     reprehensible and abhorrent genocide occurring in Sudan.
       (14) The business operations of companies in countries that 
     perpetrate grave abuses of human rights, especially the 
     uniquely monstrous crime of genocide, are of concern to many 
     United States investors and citizens even when these 
     operations represent a small fraction of a company's total 
     business.
       (15) State and city pension funds have routinely but 
     unsuccessfully sought to acquire and utilize data from the 
     Federal Government on companies for investment decisions.
       (16) There is an increasing interest by States, local 
     governments, educational institutions, and private 
     institutions to seek to disassociate themselves from 
     companies that support the Government of Sudan.
       (17) Policy makers and fund managers may find moral, 
     prudential, or reputational reasons to divest from companies 
     that accept the business risk of operating in countries that 
     are subject to international economic

[[Page H8844]]

     sanctions or that have business relationships with countries, 
     governments, or entities with which any United States company 
     would be prohibited from dealing because of economic 
     sanctions imposed by the United States.
       (18) The world community has a moral obligation to work to 
     do everything possible to stop the ongoing genocidal 
     practices of the Government of Sudan in the Darfur region.

     SEC. 3. TRANSPARENCY IN CAPITAL MARKETS.

       (a) List of Persons Directly Investing in or Conducting 
     Business Operations in Certain Sudanese Sectors.--
       (1) Publication of list.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and every 6 months 
     thereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of State, the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission, and the heads of other 
     appropriate Federal departments and agencies, shall, using 
     only publicly available (including proprietary) information, 
     ensure publication in the Federal Register of a list of each 
     person, whether within or outside of the United States, that, 
     as of the date of the publication, has a direct investment 
     in, or is conducting, business operations in Sudan's power 
     production, mineral extraction, oil-related, or military 
     equipment industries, subject to paragraph (2). To the extent 
     practicable, the list shall include a description of the 
     investment made by each such person, including the dollar 
     value, intended purpose, and status of the investment, as of 
     the date of the publication.
       (2) Exceptions.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     exclude a person from the list if all of the business 
     operations by reason of which the person would otherwise be 
     included on the list--
       (A) are conducted under contract directly and exclusively 
     with the regional government of southern Sudan;
       (B) are conducted under a license from the Office of 
     Foreign Assets Control, or are expressly exempted under 
     Federal law from the requirement to be conducted under such a 
     license;
       (C) consist of providing goods or services to marginalized 
     populations of Sudan;
       (D) consist of providing goods or services to an 
     internationally recognized peacekeeping force or humanitarian 
     organization;
       (E) consist of providing goods or services that are used 
     only to promote health or education;
       (F) are conducted by a person that has also undertaken 
     significant humanitarian efforts as described in section 
     10(14)(B);
       (G) have been voluntarily suspended; or
       (H) will cease within 1 year after the adoption of a formal 
     plan to cease the operations, as determined by the Secretary.
       (3) Consideration of scrutinized business operations.--The 
     Secretary of the Treasury should give serious consideration 
     to including on the list any company that has a scrutinized 
     business operation with respect to Sudan (within the meaning 
     of section 10(4)).
       (4) Prior notice to persons.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall, at least 30 days before the list is published under 
     paragraph (1), notify each person that the Secretary intends 
     to include on the list.
       (5) Delay in including persons on the list.--After 
     notifying a person under paragraph (4), the Secretary of the 
     Treasury may delay including that person on the list for up 
     to 60 days if the Secretary determines and certifies to the 
     Congress that the person has taken specific and effective 
     actions to terminate the involvement of the person in the 
     activities that resulted in the notification under paragraph 
     (4).
       (6) Removal of persons from the list.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury may remove a person from the list before the next 
     publication of the list under paragraph (1) if the Secretary 
     determines that the person no longer has a direct investment 
     in or is no longer conducting business operations as 
     described in paragraph (1).
       (7) Advance notice to congress.--Not later than 30 days 
     (or, in the case of the 1st such list, 60 days) before the 
     date by which paragraph (1) requires the list to be 
     published, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to the 
     Committees on Financial Services, on Education and Labor, and 
     on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committees on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs, on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and 
     on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a 
     copy of the list which the Secretary intends to publish under 
     paragraph (1).
       (b) Publication on Website.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall ensure that the list is published on an appropriate, 
     publicly accessible government website, updating the list as 
     necessary to take into account any person removed from the 
     list under subsection (a)(6).
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``investment'' 
     has the meaning given in section 4(b)(3).

     SEC. 4. AUTHORITY OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO DIVEST 
                   FROM CERTAIN COMPANIES DIRECTLY INVESTED IN 
                   CERTAIN SUDANESE SECTORS.

       (a) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United 
     States to support the decision of any State or local 
     government to divest from, and to prohibit the investment of 
     assets controlled by the State or local government in, 
     persons on--
       (1) the list most recently published under section 3(a)(1), 
     as modified under section 3(a)(6); or
       (2) any list developed by the State or local government for 
     the purpose of divestment from certain persons described in 
     subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section.
       (b) Authority to Divest.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a State or local government may adopt and enforce 
     measures to divest the assets of the State or local 
     government from, or prohibit investment of the assets of the 
     State or local government in--
       (A) persons that are included on the list most recently 
     published under section 3(a)(1) of this Act, as modified 
     under section 3(a)(6) of this Act; or
       (B) persons having a direct investment in, or carrying on a 
     trade or business (within the meaning of section 162 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986) in Sudan or with the 
     Government of Sudan, if the measures require the State or 
     local government, as the case may be, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, to--
       (i) provide written notice to each person to whom the 
     measures are to be applied; and
       (ii) not apply the measures to a person--

       (I) before the end of the 90-day period beginning with the 
     date written notice is provided to the person pursuant to 
     clause (i); or
       (II) if the person demonstrates to the State or local 
     government, as the case may be, that the person is no longer 
     involved in the activities by reason of which the measures 
     would otherwise be applied to the person.

       (2) Applicability.--This subsection applies to measures 
     adopted by a State or local government before, on, or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Investment.--The ``investment'' of assets includes--
       (i) a commitment or contribution of assets; and
       (ii) a loan or other extension of credit of assets.
       (B) Assets.--The term ``assets'' refers to public monies 
     and includes any pension, retirement, annuity, or endowment 
     fund, or similar instrument, that is controlled, directly or 
     indirectly, by a State or local government.
       (c) Preemption.--A measure of a State or local government 
     that is authorized by subsection (b) is not preempted by any 
     Federal law or regulation.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that a divestment measure 
     authorized under section 4 or a measure authorized under 
     section 9 to prohibit State or local contracts would not 
     violate the United States Constitution because such a 
     measure--
       (1) is not pre-empted under the Supremacy Clause;
       (2) is authorized by the Congress as an appropriate measure 
     with regard to interstate or foreign commerce; and
       (3) is authorized by the Congress as a measure that 
     promotes the foreign policy of the United States.

     SEC. 6. SAFE HARBOR FOR CHANGES OF INVESTMENT POLICIES BY 
                   ASSET MANAGERS.

       Section 13 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 
     80a-13) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Safe Harbor for Changes in Investment Policies.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, 
     no person may bring any civil, criminal, or administrative 
     action against any registered investment company or person 
     providing services to such registered investment company 
     (including its investment adviser), or any employee, officer, 
     or director thereof, based solely upon the investment company 
     divesting from, or avoiding investing in, securities issued 
     by companies that are included on the list most recently 
     published under section 3(a)(1) of the Darfur Accountability 
     and Divestment Act, as modified under section 3(a)(6) of that 
     Act. For purposes of this subsection the term `person' shall 
     include the Federal government, and any State or political 
     subdivision of a State.''.

     SEC. 7. SAFE HARBOR FOR CHANGES OF INVESTMENT POLICIES BY 
                   EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS.

       Section 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
     of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1104) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(n) No person shall be treated as breaching any of the 
     responsibilities, obligations, or duties imposed upon 
     fiduciaries by this title for divesting plan assets from, or 
     avoiding investing plan assets in, persons that are included 
     on the list most recently published under section 3(a)(1) of 
     the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act, as modified 
     under section 3(a)(6) of such Act. Any divestiture of plan 
     assets from, or avoidance of investing plan assets in, 
     persons that are included on such list shall be treated as in 
     accordance with this title and the documents and instruments 
     governing the plan.''.

     SEC. 8. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.

       (a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Government of the United States shall not enter into 
     or renew a contract for the procurement of goods or services 
     with persons that are included on the list most recently 
     published under section 3(a)(1), as modified under section 
     3(a)(6).
       (b) Waiver Authority.--The President may waive the 
     prohibition in subsection (a)

[[Page H8845]]

     on a case-by-case basis if the President determines and 
     certifies in writing to the Congress that it is important to 
     the national security interests of the United States to do 
     so.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORITY OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO PROHIBIT 
                   CONTRACTS.

       (a) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United 
     States to support the decision of any State or local 
     government to prohibit the State or local government, as the 
     case may be, from entering into or renewing a contract as 
     described in subsection (b).
       (b) Authority to Prohibit Contracts.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, a State or local government may adopt 
     and enforce measures to prohibit the State or local 
     government, as the case may be, from entering into or 
     renewing a contract for the procurement of goods or services 
     with persons that are included on the list most recently 
     pulbished under section 3(a)(1), as modified under section 
     3(a)(6).

     SEC. 10. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) Person.--The term ``person'', except in paragraph (6), 
     means--
       (A) a natural person as well as a corporation, company, 
     business association, partnership, society, trust, any other 
     nongovernmental entity, organization, or group;
       (B) any governmental entity or instrumentality of a 
     government, including a multilateral development institution 
     (as defined in section 1701(c)(3) of the International 
     Financial Institutions Act); and
       (C) any successor, subunit, or subsidiary of any entity 
     described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' includes the District of 
     Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States 
     Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands.
       (3) State or local government.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``State or local government'' 
     includes--
       (i) any State and any agency or instrumentality thereof;
       (ii) any local government within a State, and any agency or 
     instrumentality thereof;
       (iii) any other governmental instrumentality; and
       (iv) any public institution of higher education.
       (B) Public institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``public institution of higher education'' means a public 
     institution of higher education within the meaning of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965.
       (4) Scrutinized business operation.--A company has a 
     scrutinized business operation with respect to Sudan if--
       (A)(i) the company has business operations that involve 
     contracts with or provision of supplies or services to--
       (I) the Government of Sudan;
       (II) a company in which the Government of Sudan has any 
     direct or indirect equity share;
       (III) a consortium or project commissioned by the 
     Government of Sudan; or
       (IV) a company involved in a consortium or project 
     commissioned by the Government of Sudan; and
       (ii)(I)(aa) more than 10 percent of the revenues or assets 
     of the company that are linked to Sudan involve oil-related 
     activities or mineral extraction activities;
       (bb) less than 75 percent of the revenues or assets of the 
     company that are linked to Sudan involve contracts with, or 
     provision of oil-related or mineral extracting products or 
     services to the regional government of southern Sudan or a 
     project or consortium created exclusively by that regional 
     government; and
       (cc) the company has failed to take substantial action with 
     respect to the business operations referred to in clause (i) 
     of this subparagraph or as described in subparagraph (B) or 
     (C) of paragraph (14); or
       (II)(aa) more than 10 percent of the revenues or assets of 
     the company that are linked to Sudan involve power production 
     activities;
       (bb) less than 75 percent of the power production 
     activities of the company include projects whose intent is to 
     provide power or electricity to the marginalized populations 
     of Sudan; and
       (cc) the company has failed to take substantial action with 
     respect to the business operations referred to in clause (i) 
     of this subparagraph or as described in subparagraph (B) or 
     (C) of paragraph (14);
       (B) the company supplies military equipment in Sudan, 
     unless the company clearly shows that--
       (i) the military equipment cannot be used to facilitate 
     offensive military actions in Sudan; or
       (ii) the company implements rigorous and verifiable 
     safeguards to prevent use of the equipment by forces actively 
     participating in armed conflict, including through--

       (I) post-sale tracking of the equipment by the company;
       (II) certification from a reputable and objective third 
     party that such equipment is not being used by a party 
     participating in armed conflict in Sudan; or
       (III) sale of the equipment solely to the regional 
     government of southern Sudan or any internationally 
     recognized peacekeeping force or humanitarian organization; 
     or

       (C) the Secretary of the Treasury has determined that the 
     company has been complicit in the Darfur genocide.
       (5) Business operations.--The term ``business operations'' 
     means engaging in commerce in any form in Sudan, including by 
     acquiring, developing, maintaining, owning, selling, 
     possessing, leasing, or operating equipment, facilities, 
     personnel, products, services, personal property, real 
     property, or any other apparatus of business or commerce.
       (6) Company.--The term ``company'' means any natural 
     person, legal person, sole proprietorship, organization, 
     association, corporation, partnership, firm, joint venture, 
     franchisor, franchisee, financial institution, utility, 
     public franchise, trust, enterprise, limited partnership, 
     limited liability partnership, limited liability company, or 
     other business entity or association, including all wholly-
     owned subsidiaries, majority-owned subsidiaries, parent 
     companies, or affiliates of such business entities or 
     associations, that exists for profit-making purposes.
       (7) Complicit.--The term ``complicit'' means has taken 
     actions in the preceding 20 months which have directly 
     supported or promoted the genocidal campaign in Darfur, 
     including preventing Darfur's victimized population from 
     communicating with each other, encouraging Sudanese citizens 
     to speak out against an internationally approved security 
     force for Darfur, actively working to deny, cover up, or 
     alter evidence of human rights abuses in Darfur, or other 
     similar actions.
       (8) Government of sudan.--The term ``Government of Sudan'' 
     means the government in Khartoum, Sudan, which is led by the 
     National Congress Party (formerly known as the National 
     Islamic Front) or any successor government formed on or after 
     October 13, 2006 (including the coalition National Unity 
     Government agreed upon in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement 
     for Sudan), and does not include the regional government of 
     southern Sudan.
       (9) Marginalized populations of sudan.--The term 
     ``marginalized populations of Sudan'' includes--
       (A) the portion of the population in the Darfur region that 
     has been victimized;
       (B) the portion of the population of southern Sudan 
     victimized by Sudan's North-South civil war;
       (C) the Beja, Rashidiya, and other similarly affected 
     groups of eastern Sudan;
       (D) the Nubian and other similarly affected groups in 
     Sudan's Abyei, Southern Blue Nile, and Nuba Mountain regions; 
     and
       (E) the Amri, Hamadab, Manasir, and other similarly 
     affected groups of northern Sudan.
       (10) Military equipment.--The term ``military equipment'' 
     means--
       (A) weapons, arms, military supplies, and equipment that 
     readily may be used for military purposes, including radar 
     systems or military-grade transport vehicles; or
       (B) supplies or services sold or provided directly or 
     indirectly to any force actively participating in armed 
     conflict in Sudan.
       (11) Mineral extraction activities.--The term ``mineral 
     extraction activities'' includes--
       (A) exploring, extracting, processing, transporting, or 
     wholesale selling or trading of elemental minerals or 
     associated metal alloys or oxides (ore), including gold, 
     copper, chromium, chromite, diamonds, iron, iron ore, silver, 
     tungsten, uranium, and zinc, and
       (B) facilitating any activity described in subparagraph 
     (A), including by providing supplies or services in support 
     of the activity.
       (12) Oil-related activities.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term ``oil-related activities'' includes--
       (i) exporting, extracting, producing, refining, processing, 
     exploring for, transporting, selling, or trading oil;
       (ii) constructing, maintaining, or operating a pipeline, 
     refinery, or other oilfield infrastructure; and
       (iii) facilitating any activity described in clause (i) or 
     (ii), including by providing supplies or services in support 
     of the activity.
       (B) Special rules.--
       (i) A company that is involved in the retail sale of 
     gasoline or related consumer products in Sudan but is not 
     involved in any other activity described in subparagraph (A) 
     shall not be considered to be involved in an oil-related 
     activity.
       (ii) A company that is involved in leasing, or that owns, 
     rights to an oil block in Sudan but is not involved in any 
     other activity described in subparagraph (A) shall not be 
     considered to be involved in an oil-related activity.
       (13) Power production activities.--The term ``power 
     production activities'' means--
       (A) any business operation that involves a project 
     commissioned by the National Electricity Corporation of Sudan 
     or other similar Government of Sudan entity whose purpose is 
     to facilitate power generation and delivery, including 
     establishing power-generating plants or hydroelectric dams, 
     selling or installing components for the project, providing 
     service contracts related to the installation or maintenance 
     of the project; and
       (B) facilitating an activity described in subparagraph (A), 
     including by providing supplies or services in support of the 
     activity.
       (14) Substantial action.--The term ``substantial action'' 
     means--
       (A) adopting, publicizing, and implementing a formal plan 
     to cease scrutinized business operations within 1 year after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, and refraining from 
     any new scrutinized business operations;

[[Page H8846]]

       (B) undertaking significant humanitarian efforts--
       (i) in conjunction with an international development or 
     humanitarian organization, the regional government of 
     southern Sudan, or a non-profit entity;
       (ii) substantial in relationship to the size and scope of 
     the business operations with respect to Sudan;
       (iii) of benefit to 1 or more marginalized populations of 
     Sudan; and
       (iv) evaluated and certified by an independent third party 
     to meet the requirements of clauses (i) through (iii); or
       (C) materially improving conditions for the victimized 
     population in Darfur.

     SEC. 11. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the governments of all 
     other countries should adopt measures, similar to those 
     contained in this Act, to publicize the activities of all 
     persons that, through their financial dealings, knowingly or 
     unknowingly enable the Government of Sudan to continue to 
     oppress and commit genocide against people in the Darfur 
     region and other regions of Sudan, and to authorize 
     divestment from, and the avoidance of further investment in, 
     the persons.

     SEC. 12. SUNSET.

       This Act shall terminate 30 days after the date on which--
       (1) the President has certified to Congress that--
       (A) the Darfur genocide has been halted for at least 12 
     months; and
       (B) the Government of Sudan has honored its commitments 
     to--
       (i) abide by United Nations Security Council Resolution 
     1706;
       (ii) cease attacks on civilians;
       (iii) demobilize and demilitarize the Janjeweed and 
     associated militias;
       (iv) grant free and unfettered access for delivery of 
     humanitarian assistance; and
       (v) allow for the safe and voluntary return of refugees and 
     internally displaced persons; and
       (2) the United States has revoked all sanctions against the 
     Government of Sudan and the officials of such government, 
     including sanctions authorized by--
       (A) the Sudan Peace Act (Public Law 107-245);
       (B) the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004 (Public 
     Law 108-497);
       (C) the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 
     2005 (Public Law 109-177);
       (D) the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006 (Public 
     Law 109-344); and
       (E) any other Federal law or executive order.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Garrett) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good day for the cause of human rights and for 
drawing on the strength of the American people to vindicate the values 
that are so widely shared among our people.
  This bill is part of a package of two. Subsequently we will deal with 
a bill involving the country of Iran. Both of them have a similar 
purpose; namely, to empower Americans in their individual capacities, 
through their State governments, through organizations to express in a 
concrete way the overwhelming opposition in our country to the genocide 
being perpetrated by the Government of Sudan in Darfur, and to the 
effort by the sometimes pro-genocide Government of Iran to acquire a 
nuclear weapons capacity.
  Now what we have, we have sanctions against those countries. Let me 
say a word about sanctions. People are sometimes supportive of 
sanctions when they agree with the cause and denigrate the notion of 
sanctions when they disagree with the cause. History is clear. When 
economic sanctions are widely supported globally, they have an impact.
  I had a great day years ago, Mr. Speaker, standing in Statutory Hall 
and listening to Nelson Mandela thank the Congress of the United States 
because we had enacted sanctions. He said that the enactment of 
sanctions by the U.S. as part of a worldwide enactment of sanctions 
brought an end to apartheid earlier than it would have otherwise. Our 
former colleague, Mr. Dellums, the mayor of Oakland, had a very proud 
day then. He had been the leader of it, and it is very fitting that the 
initiator of the bill we are dealing with today is his successor, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who has been the driving force 
in the bill we have before us.
  And what we have is this: There are American citizens, State 
governments and others who have funds invested in collective investment 
entities. They have invested the funds to get a maximum return, pension 
funds, State governments and others, individuals in mutual funds. And 
they have in many cases gone to the investment entity and said, We 
don't want our money helping the dictatorship of Iran go nuclear. We 
don't want our money used to perpetuate genocide in Darfur and help a 
government that does that. We want you to sell our investments in 
companies that are complicit in this through economic support.
  And they have been met in some cases by the argument, Well, we can't 
do that because we have a fiduciary responsibility as the investment 
entity to maximize returns, and, therefore, we cannot sell this company 
and that company. And to the extent that they are complicit in Darfur 
and complicit in Iran's nuclear weapons, that is irrelevant.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that is often more of an excuse than a reason. 
But today, we render that debate moot because the two bills we are 
dealing with, now with Darfur and subsequently with Iran, do not compel 
any investment entity to do anything. These are not bills of 
compulsion. They fully respect the market. What they say is, if you are 
a mutual fund, if you are a pension fund manager, and significant 
numbers of the investors in your entity or the beneficiaries of your 
entity come to you and say, Clean my hands; I do not want to be 
financing these outrageous regimes and their terrible practices, you 
cannot plead, Oh, I am sorry. The law won't let me do it, because these 
bills have a common theme. They prevent lawsuits against these 
investment entities who take these issues into account.
  And they have a powerful double effect. First, they will add to the 
effectiveness of sanctions because there is in the United States 
widespread anger at both regimes. Not only will they add to the 
effectiveness of sanctions, they do it in a way that is fully 
respectful of the autonomy of these entities. As I said, there is no 
compulsion, no interference of the market. It is freeing Americans to 
do this, and that is also important because you have the regime in Iran 
and you have the regime in Sudan trying to avoid the public obloquy 
that they so richly deserve by saying that is just the American 
administration. They try to separate the President and his policies in 
opposition to both of these from the American people.
  What these bills do is to make it clear, as I think they soon will 
once they are law, that the opposition to the genocide in Sudan and to 
the weapons nuclearization in Iran are widespread throughout this 
country, and that this opposition is not just the President and not 
just the Congress. It is a broad, deeply held American view.
  One final point. A letter from National Council on Foreign Trade 
complained that with these bills we were going to let the States get 
into the foreign policy business. No, this is the Congress of the 
United States into the foreign policy business. This does not say that 
any mutual fund anywhere at any time can divest for foreign policy 
reasons. I think, by the way, they already have that right, and we make 
it clear in this bill. We are not trying to say that they don't.
  But what this package of bills does is these two bills makes two 
foreign policy judgments. The United States Congress, by passing these 
bills, will say we have an absolute horror about the genocide in Darfur 
and want to do everything we can to put an end to it, and we are 
overwhelmingly opposed to the regime in Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. 
These are two very specific foreign policy judgments that Congress will 
make. We will then be empowering people in the United States to join us 
in implementing them. But the argument that this somehow throws open 
the foreign policy process willy-nilly is simply wrong
  I submit the following correspondence:


                             Committee on Education and Labor,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2007.
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Frank: I am writing to confirm our mutual 
     understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 180, 
     the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act.
       As you know, Section 7 of H.R. 180 amends the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to provide a safe 
     harbor for

[[Page H8847]]

     changes of investment policies. I am writing to confirm that 
     this provision falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
     on Education and Labor.
       Given the importance of moving this bill forward promptly, 
     I do not intend to object to its consideration in the House. 
     However, I do so only with the understanding that this 
     procedure should not be construed to prejudice my Committee's 
     jurisdictional interest and prerogative in H.R. 180 or any 
     other similar legislation and will not be considered as 
     precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional 
     interest to my Committee in the future. The Committee also 
     asks that you support our request to be conferees on the 
     provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-
     Senate conference.
           Sincerely,
                                                    George Miller,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                              Committee on Financial Services,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2007.
     Hon. George Miller,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Miller: Thank you for your recent letter 
     regarding the consideration of H.R. 180, the Darfur 
     Accountability and Divestment Act. I agree that Section 7 of 
     H.R. 180 falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Education and Labor.
       I appreciate your willingness to allow this bill to move 
     forward today; and I agree that this procedure in no way 
     diminishes or alters the jurisdictional interest of the 
     Committee on Education and Labor.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Barney Frank,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2007.
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Frank: I am writing to confirm our mutual 
     understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 180, 
     the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act.
       As you know, on July 26, 2007, the Committee on Financial 
     Services ordered H.R. 180 reported to the House. The 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Oversight 
     Committee) appreciates your effort to consult regarding those 
     provisions of H.R. 180 that fall within the Oversight 
     Committee's jurisdiction and more specifically, those 
     sections involving federal contracting rules.
       In the interest of expediting consideration of H.R. 180, 
     the Oversight Committee will not separately consider this 
     bill. The Oversight Committee does so, however, with the 
     understanding that this does not prejudice the Oversight 
     Committee's jurisdictional interests and prerogatives 
     regarding this bill or similar legislation.
       I respectfully request your support for the appointment of 
     outside conferees from the Oversight Committee should H.R. 
     180 or a similar Senate bill be considered in conference with 
     the Senate.
       I also request that you include our exchange of letters on 
     this matter in the Financial Services Committee Report on H.R 
     180 or in the Congressional Record during consideration of 
     this legislation on the House floor.
       Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Henry A. Waxman,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                  Committee on Financial Services,
                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2007.
     Hon. Henry A. Waxman,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Waxman: Thank you for your letter concerning 
     H.R. 180, the ``Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act,'' 
     which the Committee on Financial Services has ordered 
     reported. The bill was also referred to the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform. This legislation will be 
     considered by the House shortly.
       I want to confirm our mutual understanding with respect to 
     the consideration of this bill. I am pleased that our 
     committees have reached an agreement regarding matters within 
     the jurisdiction of the Oversight Committee, specifically 
     those involving federal contracting rules. I appreciate your 
     cooperation in moving the bill to the House floor 
     expeditiously. I further agree that your decision not to 
     proceed on this bill will not prejudice the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform with respect to its 
     prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I would support 
     your request for conferees in the event of a House-Senate 
     conference.
       I will include this exchange of correspondence in the 
     Congressional Record during the consideration of the bill. 
     Thank you again for your assistance.
                                                     Barney Frank,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                     Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                    Washington, DC, July 30, 2007.
     Hon. Barney Frank:
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the bill, 
     H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 
     2007. I understand that there are certain provisions of this 
     legislation, as it will be presented to the full House, that 
     fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs.
       In the interest of permitting your Committee to proceed 
     expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, 
     I am willing to waive this Committee's right to sequential 
     referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving 
     consideration of the bill, the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
     does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the 
     subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its 
     Rule X jurisdiction.
       I would ask that you place this letter into the 
     Congressional Record when the Committee has H.R. 180 under 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Tom Lantos,
                                                         Chairman.

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

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today to join with the chairman in support of H.R. 180, the 
Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act.
  I'm increasingly concerned, I'm outraged in a sense, about the 
continuing atrocities in the Darfur region of Sudan. Without question, 
the horrific actions of the janjaweed militia and the Sudanese 
Government must immediately end. And the nations of the world must 
speak in unison against this genocide, and that is what it is, a 
genocide.
  Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed, many of them in 
particularly brutal ways. Another estimated 2 million in Darfur have 
been displaced refugees, plus hundreds of thousands in Chad. This is a 
crisis that must be addressed now and must be addressed on each and 
every front.
  Unfortunately, the international community, specifically in the 
United Nations, the U.N. has consistently failed in efforts to bring 
peace to this region. U.N. resolutions have lacked the teeth or failed 
to be implemented, and that is because of the Security Council members 
such as China and Russia as they continue to stall the progress.
  So as the U.N. slowly moves towards a real peacekeeping force, other 
groups are being forced to pull out because of violence in the region. 
Thus, recently, OxFam announced in June that they will have to pull out 
of the largest camp in Darfur, where more than 130,000 people have 
found shelter; and without a way to protect humanitarian aid flowing 
into the area, thousands more will face starvation.
  That is why I'm pleased we are bringing this important legislation to 
the floor today, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act.
  It requires the Secretary of the Treasury to create a list of 
companies that have a direct investment in or are conducting businesses 
operations in Sudan's power, mineral, oil or military equipment 
industries.
  It authorizes States and local municipalities to divest based on the 
Treasury list or other lists to protect them from lawsuits.
  It amends the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to protect mutual funds and 
pension funds from lawsuits if they choose to divest from companies on 
the Treasury list.
  And finally, fourthly, it prohibits the U.S. Government from entering 
into or renewing contracts with companies on that list.
  I was very pleased, as I say, Mr. Speaker, with the chairman working 
in a bipartisan manner with myself and Ranking Member Bachus on the 
committee, and we agreed to make a number of changes to the bill to 
address some of the concerns made from our side of the aisle. One of 
the specific changes that was made was calls on countries around the 
world to take similar steps with regard to the situation.
  The section states: ``It is the sense of the Congress that the 
governments of all other countries should adopt measures, similar to 
those contained in this act, to publicize the activities of all persons 
that, through their financial dealings, knowingly or unknowingly enable 
the Government of Sudan to continue to oppress and commit genocide 
against people in the Darfur region and other regions of Sudan, and to

[[Page H8848]]

authorize divestment from, and the avoidance of further investment in, 
the persons.''
  As the distinguished ranking member of the committee, Mr. Bachus, has 
noted, ``Economic and financial considerations are important, but in a 
loving Nation can never be as justification for complicity in genocide. 
Closing our financial markets to those who participate directly or 
indirectly in the slaughter of innocent human beings is well within our 
ability and ought to be a bedrock principle. America is a loving 
Nation, and allowing our financial markets to be utilized by an evil 
regime which conducts religious and racial genocide is inconsistent 
with our values and principles.''
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first I ask that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inject into 
the Record at this point a letter from 41 national organizations, the 
Save Darfur Coalition, strongly supporting this legislation
                                    Washington, DC, July 30, 2007.
       Dear Member of Congress: We write to request your vote in 
     favor of H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment 
     Act, which is ``under suspension'' and scheduled for a floor 
     vote on Monday, July 30th.
       Three years ago this month the United States Congress 
     recognized the crisis in Darfur, Sudan as genocide. Today, 
     the escalating violence in the region demands that Congress 
     take decisive action.
       Together our organizations represent concerned Americans 
     from all states and of many faiths--Darfur advocates and 
     American citizens from across the political spectrum working 
     together to end the genocide.
       We strongly endorse the spirit and substance of H.R. 180 
     and encourage its quick passage. This legislation will be a 
     powerful action to put much-needed economic pressure on Sudan 
     with the goal of stopping genocide. Thank you for your 
     consideration of this legislation.
           Sincerely,
         Bill Wasserman, Executive Director, Save Darfur 
           Coalition; Jason F. Isaacson, Director, Government and 
           International Affairs, American Jewish Committee; Ruth 
           Messinger, Executive Director, American Jewish World 
           Service; Bryan Ardouny, Executive Director, Armenian 
           Assembly of America; Gedlu B. Metaferia, Executive 
           Director, African Mutual Assistance Association of 
           Missouri; Sylvia Oliva, Clerk of Peace and Social 
           Concerns Committee, Annapolis Friends Meeting, 
           Religious Society of Friends; Aram Hamparian, Executive 
           Director, Armenian National Committee of America; 
           Daniel S. Mariaschin, Executive Vice President, B'nai 
           B'rith International; Raj Purohit, Senior Fellow, 
           Citizens for Global Solutions; Imelda Gonzalez, General 
           Councilor, Congregation of Divine Providence; Rabbi 
           Marla J. Feldman, Director, Commission on Social Action 
           of Reform Judaism; Bakheit Shata, Founder/Executive 
           Director, Darfur Community Organization, Omaha, NE; 
           Shirley Bodisch, OP, Dominican Sisters; Anita Sharma, 
           Executive Director, ENOUGH: a project to end genocide 
           and crimes against humanity; Eric Cohen, Chair, 
           FidelityOutOfSudan.Com Campaign; Mark Hanis, Executive 
           Director, Genocide Intervention Network; Nina Schwartz, 
           Vice President, Help Darfur Now; Lisa Stenchever, 
           Education Coordinator, Holocaust Museum and Study 
           Center; Steve Gutow, Executive Director, Jewish Council 
           for Public Affairs; Rabbi Shawn Zevit, Director of 
           External Affiliations and Tikkun Olam, Jewish 
           Reconstructionist Federation; Sr. Sheila Kinsey, OSF, 
           Leader, Justice, Peace & Integrity of Creation Office 
           Wheaton Franciscans, Wheaton, Illinois; Marie Lucey, 
           OSF, Associate Director for Social Mission, Leadership 
           Conference of Women Religious; Joellen McCarthy, BVM, 
           Mary Ann Zollmann, BVM, Peggy Nolan, BVM, Leadership 
           Team of the Sisters of Charity, BVM Dubuque, Iowa; 
           Hilary O. Shelton, Director, NAACP Washington Bureau; 
           Sr. Elizabeth Rogers, Justice and Peace Representative, 
           North American Province of the Cenacle Sisters; Eddie 
           L. Koen, Jr., National Chair, National Black Law 
           Students Association; Rev. Dr. Bob Edgar, General 
           Secretary, National Council of Churches; Martina W. 
           Knee, Member, Executive Committee, San Francisco Bay 
           Area Darfur Coalition; Andrea Schuver, Co-chair, Save 
           Darfur of South Palm Beach; Julie Driscoll, SCN, Vice-
           President, Sisters of Charity of Nazareth; Sister 
           Marilyn Gottemoeller, Sisters of Mercy, Regional 
           Community of Cincinnati; Diana Oleskevich, CSJA, 
           Justice Coordinator, Sisters of St. Joseph of 
           Carondelet and Associates; Sister Catherine Marie 
           Kreta, CSJ, Justice Coordinator, Sisters of St. Joseph 
           of Carondelet--Los Angeles Province; Sister Patricia 
           Murphy, CSJ, Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet--St. 
           Louis Province; Sister Marge Wissman, Sisters of St. 
           Francis, Oldenburg, IN; Scott Warren, Director, STAND: 
           A Student Anti-Genocide Coalition; Gabriel Stauring, 
           Co-Founder, Stop Genocide Now; Adam Sterling, Director, 
           Sudan Divestment Task Force; Rob Mosher, Director, 
           Government Affairs, U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs 
           Committee; Dr. Geoff Tunnicliffe, International 
           Director/CEO, World Evangelical Alliance; Czerina 
           Patel, Executive Director, Yenza: Building Bridges, 
           Spotlighting Success and Amplifying Voice in Africa.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the main sponsor of the bill, as I 
said, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who as a member in the 
last term of both the Foreign Affairs and Financial Services Committees 
was very well-suited to push this and continues to be a very strong 
supporter of it.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, 
Congressman Frank, for his tremendous leadership. Not only did you help 
us move this bill forward, but you helped, quite frankly, to make it a 
much better bill. So I want to thank Congressman Frank, also your 
staff, Daniel McGlinchey, Jim Segal and Katie Lavelle for working with 
us over the last few months to craft this bill.
  Also let me just thank and recognize Congressman Luis Gutierrez, who 
chairs the subcommittee, for his support and assistance.
  In addition, I must thank the Sudan Divestment Task Force and its 
staff and especially my staff, Lauren Jenkins and Christos Tsentos, as 
well as Sam Bell and Aysha House-Moshi, formerly of my staff, who 
really helped me and helped the groups around the country come together 
to put this bill together.
  And let me thank our ranking member of the committee for his early 
leadership, Congressman Bachus, as well as Congressman Garrett, a 
cosponsor of this bill, and also Congressman Don Payne, Frank Wolf and 
Senator Brownback for testifying at the committee when this bill was 
heard.
  And, lastly, let me just commend and thank our great Speaker, Speaker 
 Nancy Pelosi, for her tremendous leadership, and also our majority 
leader, Steny Hoyer, for making sure that our caucus works in a 
bipartisan fashion to keep this issue alive.
  Thirteen years ago, the world stood by as nearly 1 million people 
were slaughtered in the genocide in Rwanda, and the best our country 
could do then was to apologize for failing to act after the fact. Many 
of us swore that another Rwanda would never again take place on our 
watch, but it is happening again.
  Three years ago last week, on July 22, 2004, under the leadership of 
our good friend Congressman Don Payne, Congress finally formally 
declared the genocide was taking place in Darfur. Today, the genocide 
is getting worse. I have witnessed this horror on three occasions in 
Darfur; and let me tell you, it is getting worse.
  Mr. Speaker, many of us in a bipartisan effort have spoken out 
repeatedly on the floor over the last three years in condemnation of 
the ongoing genocide in Darfur. These efforts have only intensified as 
we have sought to use each and every tool at our disposal to bring this 
genocide to an end.
  In April, we passed a resolution urging our friends in the League of 
Arab States to exert their influence on the Government of Sudan.
  In May, we called on the Defense Department to examine the 
rehabilitation of the Abeche airfield in Chad to support expanded 
humanitarian operations in Darfur.
  And in June we passed another resolution urging the Chinese to 
leverage their very unique influence with Sudan to help end the 
genocide.
  Today, we take another very important step forward by passing H.R. 
180. This is bipartisan legislation which would support the growing 
grass-roots movement to divest from companies doing business in Sudan.
  Organizations led by young people like STAND and the Save Darfur 
Coalition have been in the forefront of successful student divestment 
campaigns

[[Page H8849]]

across the country to pressure the Khartoum regime to end the genocide 
in Darfur, and we do owe them a debt of gratitude.
  To date, over 54 universities, 19 States and 9 cities have passed 
divestment legislation to pull State and local funds out of companies 
that conduct business with Sudan.
  Throughout our country, our constituents are standing up and 
demanding that their hard-earned money not be used to support a pariah 
government that is killing its own people.
  My bill would authorize and support States, local governments, 
universities, mutual funds and pension plans that choose to divest from 
companies doing business in Sudan.
  At the same time, we would prohibit the Federal Government from 
renewing or signing contracts with multinational companies doing 
business with Sudan. These businesses and industries are in the mineral 
and oil and military equipment industries. We want them to stop 
propping up this genocidal regime.
  As we pursue divestment, we must also continue to support the rapid 
and unconditional deployment of the United Nations and African Union 
forces, along with free and unfettered access for groups providing 
humanitarian assistance. And we must continue to urge all parties to 
lay down their arms and come to the table to negotiate a political 
solution.
  Every day we wait, killings, the rapes, the starvation, the 
dislocation, they all continue.
  This genocide is happening on our watch. But this time, working 
together in a bipartisan coalition, we have the will and determination 
and the wherewithal to stop it. It worked with the racist apartheid 
regime in South Africa, and it can work with the genocidal regime in 
Sudan.
  Not on our watch. Save Darfur, as the Save Darfur Coalition so 
passionately has said; and, today, I hope that the House of 
Representatives will say the same thing by passing H.R. 180.
  Again, I want to thank the Financial Services Committee, and I must 
thank again Congressman Frank for really making sure that what we 
intend to do we will do. And I want to thank Congressman Frank again 
for making this a much stronger bill. We've worked on this for a couple 
of years, and I tell you working together in a bipartisan fashion we 
will end this horrific genocide in Darfur
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), ranking 
member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to support the bill before 
us, H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act.
  It was 3 years ago this month, Mr. Speaker, that Congress passed the 
historic resolution declaring that genocide was occurring in the Darfur 
region of western Sudan. This was the first time in the history of this 
body that genocide was declared as the atrocities were occurring.
  The decision to evoke the word ``genocide'' at that time was not 
taken lightly, but the evidence of vast slaughter, aerial bombardments 
and forced displacements targeted against the African tribes in Darfur 
left us with little choice.
  No one could claim that they did not understand the gravity of the 
human rights and the security crisis in Darfur. We read about it in the 
papers. We saw the images on television. We heard about it from 
humanitarian groups in the region, and some of us have now even seen it 
with our own eyes.
  It was believed that, by making such a bold declaration, other 
responsible nations would feel compelled to join the United States in 
taking firm action to halt this senseless slaughter of innocent 
civilians in this far off place, but here we are 3 years later and the 
carnage in Darfur continues.
  Hundreds of thousands have been killed, over 2 million others have 
been forced from their homes. Entire villages have been razed, crops 
and wells destroyed, and countless young women and girls raped. And 
here we are again forced to go it alone, for the sake of the victims of 
genocide in Sudan.
  Currently, the U.N. Security Council is once again held hostage to 
the search for consensus. Council members are engaged in a senseless 
debate over the latest resolution on Darfur, fighting over whether 
deploying a truly capable peacekeeping mission, with a chapter 7 
mandate to protect civilians, violates the so-called sovereignty of a 
genocidal regime.
  Several of my colleagues and I traveled to the United Nations last 
week as part of a delegation led by our majority leader, Steny Hoyer. 
We focused our efforts on securing support for immediate action by the 
United Nations, but we cannot afford to continue to wait.
  I cannot forget the faces of the children and the families in the 
camps that I visited in April. Their eyes spoke volumes, piercing 
through our souls, clamoring for the world to help them.
  It is, therefore, time once again to take bold action in the hope 
that it will finally compel the murderous regime in Khartoum to simply 
end this madness. We need to send a clear message to Khartoum that we 
are not fooled by their half measures and delay tactics and that we are 
serious about ending this conflict. And to do so we must speak in 
language that they will surely understand, the language of economic 
interests.

                              {time}  1300

  This Sudanese regime has proven time and time again that it responds 
only to real pressure. The only true leverage we have is to strike at 
their economic interest. H.R. 180 does exactly that. It requires that 
the Secretary of the Treasury publish and maintain a list of companies 
or entities whose business dealings directly benefit the regime in 
Khartoum. It enables State and local governments to divest from those 
companies and provide safe harbor to fund managers who do divest.
  In essence, this allows the contributors to and the beneficiaries of 
State and local government pension funds to avoid directly or 
indirectly supporting genocide in Darfur. Divestment campaigns of this 
nature have drawn criticism by some who fear that they inappropriately 
violate the sanctity of U.S. markets.
  It is true divestments should not be taken lightly. But in the case 
of genocide, we are bound by conscience and overarching U.S. values to 
do all that is within our power to intervene. Having served as witness 
to this catastrophe, I have no hesitation in supporting the cause of 
divestment.
  In fact, it gives me great pride to say that in my own district, 
south Floridians have joined in this humanitarian effort. It is time to 
stop funding the war machine in Sudan. Adoption of this legislation 
today will no doubt put us at odds with a number of our allies, with 
members of the U.N. Security Council, and those with significant 
economic interest with Sudan, such as China.
  Our labeling of the atrocities in Darfur as genocide also put us at 
odds with others. But their indifference did not deter us in 2004, and 
it must not deter us now. I urge my fellow Members to take a stand 
today on behalf of the people of Darfur and to support this important 
legislation.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
from Florida, who has been a leader on human rights. Also, I should say 
that I am very proud of the bipartisan cooperation we have had in the 
Financial Services Committee on this.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to one of the other main coauthors 
of this, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman)
  Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Madam Speaker, we have already banned U.S. companies from conducting 
business operations in Sudan. Now we need to enlist American investors 
to change the behavior of foreign-based multinationals, to make it 
clear that they cannot have the capital of well-meaning Americans and 
the supposed benefit of cozying up to the government in Khartoum.
  The way to do this, the way to change the behavior of the Government 
of Sudan, is to change the behavior of multinational corporations. The 
way to change the behavior of multinational corporations is to change 
American investment policies.
  Scores of private organizations in this country, including the 
University of Southern California, have already

[[Page H8850]]

divested; some 19 States have already adopted divestment policies. This 
bill helps divestiture in two ways. First, it provides some critical 
guidance to those who want to divest. Those who want to divest are 
faced first with the issue of what standards to apply: Do I want to 
divest in any company that sells a candy bar in Khartoum, or do I only 
want to divest against those companies selling guns to the Government 
of Sudan?
  This bill focuses on those companies providing the strategic 
assistance that helps the Khartoum Government and empowers that 
government. It identifies the key investment sectors of the Sudanese 
economy that government relies upon. It draws the line that establishes 
a clear standard. Others may depart from that standard and have an 
absolute rule: I don't want to invest in anything, any company doing 
business in Sudan. But this bill provides guidance to those who want 
one.
  Second, the issue is which companies do I not want to invest in. Here 
the bill provides a list published by the Secretary of the Treasury of 
those companies violating the standards identified in the bill.
  As the chairman of our committee points out, investors already have 
the right to divest. They shouldn't wait for us to pass this bill. The 
fiduciary duty to protect one's beneficiaries is enhanced if you divest 
from those businesses doing business in Sudan, because investing in 
terror is bad business and the sign of bad management; it exposes a 
corporation to reputational risk.
  Likewise, our cities and States have the right to decide for 
themselves how to invest their money. But even if you buy the 
constitutional view, and I don't, that they can only divest when 
consistent with American foreign policy, you don't have to wait for 
this bill. Sudan is on the terrorism list. There is no clearer 
statement of American foreign policy that we want all Americans, and 
all cities, counties and States, to join with the Federal Government in 
carrying out the Federal policy to put economic pressure on the 
government in Khartoum.
  So I hope people will act now. To some extent, what this bill does in 
stating that fiduciaries are free to divest is simply provide an end to 
an excuse. They don't need the excuse. They ought to divest
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I begin by saying that over the last couple of years there have been 
multiple genocides that occurred under the U.N.'s watch. There was 
Bosnia, Rwanda and now Darfur. Each time the U.N. has failed to take 
appropriate action. Each time it is because of political and economic 
pressure.
  When the current situation arose in Darfur, the best that we could 
get out of the U.N. and then-Secretary General Kofi Annan was, at the 
anniversary of Rwanda, simply a statement on the floor of that 
anniversary and a moment of silence and the pledge this shall never 
happen again. Unfortunately, it has happened again. That is why we are 
here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman and a strong fighter 
on this issue, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman very much and appreciate his work.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come here today. It's amazing, this 
suspension calendar has so many big bills. The chairman of the 
Financial Services Committee points out this is important legislation 
that we are discussing. It may be on the suspension calendar, but 
that's only because there is unanimity. There is a feeling on both 
sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat, House and Senate, 
supporting these bills, as well as the White House.
  We will be dealing with the Darfur Accountability Divestment Act of 
2007, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007. We are going to be 
expressing a sense of the House of Representatives that the Government 
of Japan should formally acknowledge, apologize and accept historical 
responsibility in a clear and unequivocal manner for its Imperial Armed 
Force's coercion of young women into the sex trade. We are going to be 
urging the Government of Canada to end the outrageous commercial sea 
hunts. We will be amending the Iran Sanctions Act, and we will have a 
Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of World War II Act, these 
brave men, in particular, and women, who basically risked their lives 
going back and forth to Europe and haven't gotten the recognition they 
deserve.
  But let me speak specifically to Darfur. I rise in support of H.R. 
180, which supports State, city and university efforts to divest funds 
or restrict investment in companies that conduct business operations in 
Sudan.
  First, let me say I have tremendous respect for all those who have 
worked to raise awareness of this important issue, student groups and 
faith-based organizations, especially from the African-American, Jewish 
and Armenian communities have done a wonderful job, a really 
outstanding job of educating their fellow citizens and lawmakers about 
the crisis and the need to respond.
  In addition, this body owes a debt of gratitude to Representative 
Barbara Lee, Representative Frank Wolf, Chairman Tom Lantos and 
Chairman Barney Frank, Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Ranking 
Member Mr. Bachus and others who have kept the genocide of Darfur in 
our forefront and consciousness.
  The world collectively agreed to never again allow genocide after the 
Holocaust and again after the mass murders of Rwanda in 1994. 
Tragically, genocide is taking place, and the United States must take 
all reasonable steps to end the killing.
  The United States has made a tremendous commitment to the people of 
Darfur in the form of humanitarian aid and diplomatic efforts to end 
the genocide, but more must be done. Divestment is a very serious step 
for our government to take against a nation that does not threaten our 
security or the security of our allies.
  It is a tool that must be used sparingly, but given the abhorrent 
crimes that continue to be committed against the Darfuri people, I 
believe it is a most appropriate act.
  The bottom line, as this legislation states, is that no American 
should have to worry that his or her investment or pension money was 
earned in support of genocide.
  I urge all Members to vote for H.R. 180 and continue our efforts and 
commitment to end violence in the Sudan.
  I want to say, in closing, that we are going to have to consider even 
more significant acts. One is sanctions, but we may need to consider a 
no-fly zone, and, frankly, working with others, military force. 
Obviously we have to use our military sparingly, given their overuse in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, but can we expect that the African Union can do 
more than send 7,000 troops? We should be willing to pay for that, and 
we are.
  Can we expect that Europe should be willing to step up and take 
action? They are rarely willing to, but in this case, I think we should 
expect they should, especially given their minimal role in Iraq and 
even their less than full participation in Afghanistan.
  Can we expect NATO to step up? That involves the United States. Why 
not? And that at the very end, if nothing else happens, the U.S.
  I was in Darfur in August of 2006, meeting with the governor of 
Northern Darfur. He was somewhat disturbed by the killings going on in 
his own country. But when I suggested that we might need to take other 
action like a no-fly zone, he was indignant. He was outraged. He 
couldn't accept it. That got his attention. He wasn't particularly 
concerned that his own people were killing each other with, frankly, 
the consent of its own government, but he was outraged to think that 
outside governments might come in and stop it.
  We will have to deal with that outrage. We have to stop the killing
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a 
member of the committee who has been working hard on this, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I also rise to support 
this legislation to treat the monstrous Bashir regime in the Sudan like 
the pariah it deserves to be. I also visited the Sudan in April as a 
member of a congressional delegation led by Majority Leader Steny 
Hoyer. Ms. Lee, the author of this important legislation was a member 
of that delegation, as was Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, who just spoke a few 
minutes ago.

[[Page H8851]]

  I returned from the Sudan even more convinced that we must not waiver 
in our effort to end the genocide in Darfur. The Bashir regime, just 
last week, again rejected a draft United Nations resolution to deploy a 
joint peacekeeping force to use all necessary means to end the violence 
in Darfur, to end the killing, to secure order.
  The Bashir regime has repeatedly called an international force an 
affront to their sovereignty. The Bashir regime has forfeited their 
sovereignty, their claim to sovereignty, by committing genocide, by 
sponsoring genocide against their own people. In the last 4 years, 
400,000 to 450,000 people have been killed in Darfur; 2.5 million 
people have abandoned their homes to seek refuge from the violence; 4 
million rely on food assistance.
  The Bashir regime's claim of sovereignty is a flimsy legalism in the 
face of the atrocities in Darfur. This legislation will hold up for 
public shame the companies that invest in the Sudan or conduct business 
with the Sudan that will seek profits, even in the face of the genocide 
in Darfur.
  Sixty years ago, as the enormity of the Holocaust sank in, humanity 
promised never again. But the world has let genocide happen again and 
again, most recently in Rwanda. Kofi Annan, then-Secretary General of 
the United Nations, admitted that the world failed the people of 
Rwanda. I refuse to fail the people of the Sudan, of Darfur, as we 
failed the people of Rwanda. I am determined to keep the promise of 60 
years ago. Never again.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a 
champion of the fight for human rights, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf).
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Darfur Accountability and 
Divestment Act. I want to thank Congressman Lee for her leadership in 
this effort; also Chairman Frank for his effort to move this thing and 
not just talk about it, but actually get it out; also Congressman 
Bachus and Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for their effort.

                              {time}  1315

  I also want to thank all of the young students around the country who 
have participated in this whole disinvestment thing. When the whole 
tide was running against them, they went against the tide, and this 
language, this legislation, will enable them now to move.
  Genocide continues. 400,000 to 450,000 have died. There are 2.5 
million in camps, many in Chad. Now, the Sudanese government, I heard 
on Friday, are giving the right for people in Chad to come back, not 
Sudanese but people from Chad, to come in and take over much of the 
land, some of the land, up to 90,000 that belongs to the people of 
Darfur.
  The previous speaker just said the U.N. failed. Wow, the U.N. failed 
so much. The U.N. failed in Srebeniza. They stood by and allowed the 
Serbs to come in and commit genocide in Srebeniza. The U.N. failed. And 
Kofi Annan, who was really head of U.N. peacekeeping, and he failed 
while he just stood by and allowed the genocide to take place in 
Rwanda. Kofi Annan and the U.N. failed and history has to show it. It 
has to show that the people at the U.N. failed to deal with this issue 
of genocide.
  When Senator Brownback and I were there with the first group, we came 
back and asked Kofi Annan to go. He had not actually been there before. 
This has been a failure. And because of Congresswoman Lee and Chairman 
Frank and others coming to demonstrate the United States is committed 
to doing something that can really make a difference and not just a 
resolution that calls something something and nothing ever happens.
  The Chinese have failed. We cannot hide the fact. Every time you 
purchase a piece of furniture or food or whatever and it says ``Made in 
China,'' this is the government that has helped bring you the genocide 
in Darfur. Their Olympics in 2008 will be a monument to their genocidal 
activity and effort. Period. Period. They've even hired people to put 
on a good show similar to what Nazi Germany did, Hitler did, in the 
Olympics in the thirties. They could have singlehandedly stopped the 
genocide. The President of China went to Sudan and we all thought that 
he was going to announce that he had put pressure on the Sudanese 
government. He announced that he was building them a new palace. China, 
after the Government of Sudan, is the number two country responsible, 
history will show, responsible.
  Lastly, because of the efforts of Congresswoman Lee, hopefully now 
all of the Governors and the State legislatures, including my own, 
which did it in the Senate but not in the House, will now feel released 
and there will be no excuse to pass these, the same way that the State 
of New Jersey did under the leadership of Don Payne and the people 
there. The same way that California did. The same way that Illinois 
did. Many States have been reluctant. They have looked for excuses to 
find out. This legislation takes away all the excuses and hopefully 
this time next year after all the legislatures have had an opportunity 
to act, there will be a rollcall and all 50 legislatures will have 
participated and made this State law whereby the disinvestment takes 
place around the world.
  Again, I thank Congresswoman Lee. I thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey. There ought to be a rollcall vote on this. I don't know what 
the intentions are, I'm not involved in it, but there ought to be a 
rollcall vote because they will look to see. One, it will be 
interesting to see if anyone votes ``no'' on it, but secondly I think 
the Chinese will look, the Bashir will look, the Khartoum government 
will look, and lastly the people in the camps will find out that the 
United States Congress has done something to really make a difference.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to 
say we agree with the gentleman from Virginia. There will be a 
rollcall. Among the people who we hope will look at it are the few 
right across the hall there. We do plan to have a rollcall.
  Secondly, I just want to say that people have commented on the 
overwhelming support, but this could have been more divisive, and the 
staffs of both Democrats and Republicans on our committee, Chris 
Tsentas of Ms. Lee's staff and others worked very hard together
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield the remaining time to the gentleman from 
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 2\1/4\ 
minutes.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult for me to 
follow such a most eloquent speech that was given by my good friend 
from Virginia, a true champion of human rights, and as cochair of our 
Human Rights Caucus also with the gentleman from California, the 
chairman of our House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Tom Lantos.
  I want to thank the chairman of our Financial Services Committee, Mr. 
Frank, for his leadership and for introducing as well as following 
closely the way that we have now come about in bringing this very 
important legislation for consideration by Members of this body. I 
would be remiss if I did not also express my sincere appreciation to 
one of our former senior members of our Foreign Affairs Committee who 
is no longer with us, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Barbara Lee, 
for her leadership and for her sensitivity especially to the problems 
we are faced with in Darfur. I thank also my good friend, the chairman 
of our Africa subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Don 
Payne, who I know has also been working very closely in crafting this 
legislation. My good friend, the ranking member of our Foreign Affairs 
Committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and I know our chairman of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee both support it and I thank them for their leadership 
in bringing this legislation for consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, over 400,000, 450,000 men, women and children, 
especially children, are already dead in the event of the atrocities 
that have been committed against these people in Darfur and over 2 
million refugees. According to the Associated Press report just this 
month, it says, the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its first 
overall review of Sudan's record in a decade, said that systematic 
murder, rape, forced evictions and attacks

[[Page H8852]]

against civilians continue to be committed with total impunity 
throughout the Sudan and particularly in Darfur.
  That's a fact. And what are we doing about it? I think this 
legislation helps move in that right direction, and I can't think of a 
better person, a leader in our Chamber here, Ms. Lee, for taking the 
leadership in this important legislation, as it was in her predecessor, 
our good friend Mr. Dellums from California and his leadership in 
presenting the importance of the role sanctions can play in situations 
that the global community should make better efforts to support to get 
rid of this terrible problem that we find ourselves with in Darfur.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, just a concluding point, with 
the need for us to take initial movement on this but also to look for 
the rest of the world community to become involved.
  It was just last year when U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch 
Brown said with regard to Darfur on this point: ``And yet what can the 
U.S. do alone in the heart of Africa in a region the size of France? In 
essence, the U.S. is stymied before it even passes Go. It needs a 
multilateral means to address the Sudan's concerns.'' I believe that is 
true, but this is the first step in that direction.
  With that, I once again thank the gentlelady from California and the 
chairman as well for their work together in a bipartisan manner on this 
legislation
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, 
introduced by my colleague Ms. Lee of California, of which I am a co-
sponsor.
  Mr. Speaker, Darfur, where the fIrst genocide of the 20th century 
rages, remains the worst humanitarian situation we face today. Since 
the crisis began in 2003, an estimated 400,000 people have been killed 
by the Government of Sudan and its Janjaweed allies. Additionally, over 
2,000,000 people have been displaced from their homes and livelihoods, 
many of whom are still either internally displaced within Darfur or are 
in refugee camps across the border in Chad. Both the House of 
Representatives and the Senate declared that the atrocities in the 
Darfur region of Sudan constitute genocide in July 2004, and the Bush 
administration reached the same conclusion in September 2004.
  And yet, three years later, the humanitarian situation in Darfur 
continues to decline. As attacks on international aid organizations 
continue to mount, the numbers of humanitarian relief workers active in 
the area are sharply declining. During the first three months of 2007, 
21 humanitarian vehicles were hijacked, 15 additional vehicles were 
looted, and gunmen raided 6 humanitarian compounds. In the 12 months 
preceding April 2007, the number of humanitarian relief workers in 
Darfur decreased by 16 percent, largely due to security concerns, 
restriction on access, and funding limitations. The flow of 
humanitarian aid has been severely threatened by the escalating 
violence in the region.

  Divestment is one solid and easy way that individuals, organizations, 
businesses, universities, cities, and states can not only make a strong 
statement against genocide, but can actually act to halt the killing in 
Darfur. This legislation supports state, city, and university efforts 
to divest funds from, or restrict investments in, companies that 
conduct business operations in Sudan. It directs the Securities and 
Exchange Commission (SEC) to require all companies trading in 
registered securities that conduct business operations directly or 
through parent or subsidiary companies in Sudan to disclose the nature 
of such operations, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to 
investigate the existence and extent of such companies' Federal 
Retirement Thrift Investment Board investments. The State of Texas is 
one of a few states that has moved to divert from Sudan. The time to 
act is now. People are dying. I will be going to Sudan soon to visit 
the people of Darfur--we will visit aide workers and review the status 
of the U.N. Peacekeepers and the status of water and nutrition among 
the already brutalized Darfurians. Again we must act to save lives now.
  This legislation also prohibits U.S. government contracts with 
companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, with exceptions 
for companies with activities in southern Sudan, related to the 
implementation of the 2006 Darfur Peace agreement, those providing 
military equipment to the African Union or the U.N. in Darfur, and 
those providing humanitarian aid. Targeted financial policies of this 
sort ensure that they will have the maximum impact on the government of 
Sudan, while minimizing any negative effect on innocent Sudanese 
civilians.
  While U.S. law already prohibits American companies from directly 
operating in Sudan, they may still invest in foreign companies 
operating in Sudan, including many that are directly involved in 
supporting the genocide. Americans who invest in these American 
companies are, without their knowledge, financing Sudan's killing 
fields. As this bill explicitly states, ``No American should have to 
worry that his or her investments or pension money was earned in 
support of genocide.'' However, we must engage with China to encourage 
it to stop supporting actions in Sudan that lead to genocide.
  Divestment has historically proven an effective tool to alter unjust 
and persecutory policies. In 1986, it was targeted against companies 
that conducted business operations in South Africa, and it played a 
critical role in ending the apartheid regime. By the time free 
elections took place in 1994, large numbers of American States, 
counties, cities, and universities had adopted divestment policies.

  Similarly, divestment has become an increasingly popular option in 
the current case of genocide in Sudan. I am proud that my home State of 
Texas is one of the growing numbers of States, cities, and universities 
to approve divestment. At last count, 9 cities, 16 States and 54 
universities had passed legislation to ensure that their money does not 
go to finance the slaughter of innocent people in Darfur. In addition, 
numerous religious organizations, as well as countless individuals, 
have divested. Since the Sudan divestment movement began, companies 
including HC Helicopter, ABB, Siemens, Rolls Royce, and Schlumberger 
have halted or significantly altered their operations in Sudan.
  Divestment represents the leverage that ordinary citizens and 
individual activists, as well as States, cities, universities, and 
other organizations, have to influence the Sudanese government. It is 
the answer to the question that so many of us active in the fight to 
end genocide in Darfur hear too often: ``What can I, as an individual, 
do in the face of such overwhelming and ongoing tragedy?''
  Mr. Speaker, the American people do not support genocide in Sudan; 
their money should not support these atrocities either. I strongly urge 
my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, and I 
want to congratulate my good friend from California, Ms. Lee, on 
producing the bill before us today.
  H.R. 180 would put much needed pressure on the Government of Sudan 
by, (1) prohibiting the U.S. Government from entering into contracts 
with companies fueling the genocide, (2) authorizing states to divest 
from the worst offending companies in Sudan, and (3) authorizing states 
to prohibit contracts with companies fueling the genocide. This bill is 
necessary because states deserve protection for acting as responsible 
and moral market participants. Furthermore, this legislation does not 
affect American companies, and its provisions would expire once the 
genocide has ended.
  In 2004, I traveled to Darfur to see this devastation first hand. I 
was shocked and appalled at the level of human suffering. As the vice-
chair of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, I have 
tried to improve conditions in Darfur with humanitarian aid and 
peacekeeping funds, but more must be done.
  This bill begins to do the things that our humanitarian aid and our 
peacekeeping funds can't--address corporate and social responsibility 
and put additional pressure on the Khartoum government to end the 
genocide.
  Again, I congratulate the gentlewoman for her legislation, and I 
strongly urge an aye vote for H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and 
Divestment Act.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to 
support the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, H.R. 180.
  The passage of this bill will require the identification of companies 
that conduct business operations in Sudan and prohibit the United 
States Government to contract with such companies. The atrocities in 
Sudan have only continued to escalate. The U.S. Government must cut 
ties with a government that fails to address the genocide within its 
own boundaries. The Government of Sudan has not put any action to 
disarm the Janjaweed militia and is therefore equally responsible for 
the human rights violations against Darfurians.
  An estimated 450,000 people have been killed, and 2 million people 
have been displaced--234,000 of which have been forced into neighboring 
Chad. Janjaweed soldiers continue to ride into villages stealing 
whatever goods they can find, slaughtering men, women, and children 
along the way. These soldiers systematically rape women and children, 
holding some as sex slaves for weeks at a time before releasing them.
  Colleagues, we are in a position to help stop the carnage in Darfur. 
We must continue to pressure the Government of Sudan to stop the 
massacre in Darfur. Enforcing economic

[[Page H8853]]

sanctions is a way to achieve this goal. I urge you all, for the sake 
of humanity, to support the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act. 
We are not blind to the truth and we have a responsibility to do our 
part to alleviate this awful tragedy.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 180, the 
Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important and timely legislation 
to authorize States to divest from companies in Sudan, and to prohibit 
new federal contracts with companies doing business with the genocidal 
regime in Khartoum. Current estimates indicate that as many as 450,000 
people have been killed and over 2.5 million have been displaced due to 
the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. The security 
situation on the ground is continuing to deteriorate and the violence 
is spreading to surrounding countries.
  As a member of the CBC and an African American, I joined my 
colleagues in support of H. Res. 333, in the last Congress, to 
designate the weekend of July 15-17 as a National Weekend of Prayer and 
Reconciliation for Darfur. The tragic and unforgivable/unforgiving 
genocide occurring in Darfur is as significant as acts of terrorism on 
which we are more focused. Over a million people, driven from their 
homes, now face death from starvation and diseases as the Government 
and militias attempt to prevent humanitarian aid from reaching them. 
These acts of genocide, civil terrorism, and inhumanity must stop! And 
the legislation we are considering today will go a long way in 
achieving this result.
  The Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 requires the 
Secretary of the Treasury to create a list of companies who have a 
direct investment in or are conducting business operations in Sudan's 
power, mineral, oil, or military equipment industries. The list will be 
published in the Federal Register six months after enactment, and every 
six months thereafter.
  Many of our constituents are standing up and demanding that their 
hard earned money not be used to support a pariah government that is 
killing its own people. In passing H.R. 180 today we will be doing our 
part help protect the Sudan divestment movement at the State level and 
to help it continue to grow.
  I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 180, 
the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 of which I am a 
co-sponsor.
  Three years ago last week, Congress formally declared that genocide 
was taking place in Darfur. For many years now we have seen the 
devastating atrocities taking place in the Darfur region of Sudan. With 
the support of the Sudanese Government, the Janjaweed militia has 
ravaged the people of Darfur, raping, torturing, murdering, and forcing 
hundreds of thousand of Darfuris to flee to refugee camps in 
neighboring Chad and the Central African Republic.
  It is time that we begin to put in place legislation that will end 
this genocide. This legislation supports state, city, and university 
efforts to divest funds from, or restrict investments in, companies 
that conduct business operations in Sudan. This is a positive first 
step in achieving this goal.
  We saw the same devastation in Rwanda over a decade ago, and the 
American people have made their voices heard on this issue vowing never 
again to remain silent when humanity is threatened.
  A few months ago, an event was held in my congressional district 
regarding this issue. During the event it was noted that according to 
www.darfurscores.com I was receiving a grade of ``C'' in my support of 
ending the genocide in Darfur. While it may appear on the surface that 
I have not been supportive of these efforts, it is important that you 
know I am in total support of ending the genocide in Darfur.
  I along with many of my Congressional Black Caucus colleagues 
including Donald Payne and Barbara Lee were some of the first members 
of Congress to speak out about this issue. During the last Congress, we 
specifically addressed this issue with President George W. Bush in a 
meeting asking him to take immediate action. Additionally, I have co-
sponsored and voted in favor of legislation as far back as the 108th 
Congress regarding this issue. Some of the bills I have supported 
included a bill for the appointment of a Presidential Special Envoy for 
Sudan and to prohibit companies that conduct business operations in 
Sudan from receiving government contracts. Most recently, I voted in 
favor of legislation calling on the League of Arab States and each 
Member State to acknowledge the Darfur genocide as well as signed onto 
a letter to the China government asking them to use their significant 
economic influence with the Government of Sudan to end these crimes 
against humanity.
  While I understand that there may be some gaps on paper with regard 
to my record on this issue, trust that my support for ending the 
genocide in Darfur has been unwavering. It is my hope that I will be 
able to work with the people of the 11th Congressional District and 
across this country to continue to let our voices heard on this issue. 
I encourage my constituents to contact me with your ideas and resources 
so we can continue to fight this injustice against humanity.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 180, the 
Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007. Congresswoman Lee and 
Congressman Payne are to be commended for their continued dedication to 
the people of Africa--and to the people of Darfur in particular.
  It was September 2004--almost three years ago--when then Secretary of 
State Colin Powell declared that the situation in Darfur could be 
described in no other way than ``genocide.''
  And yet today, millions of people have been run off of their 
homeland. Children who should be in school, learning, are forced into 
armies. Women are raped and brutalized daily. Refugee camps are 
overrun. For many, the situation seems hopeless.
  World leaders take the stage day after day talking--calling for an 
end to violence. Enough talking. It is clear the government of Sudan 
will not listen. Maybe the only way they will listen is to hit them in 
their pocket book--and that is exactly what we will do today.
  This bill will identify which companies are conducting business in 
Sudan--some would say at the expense of the Darfur people. Once these 
companies are identified, the U.S. Government will be prohibited from 
doing business with them. If the Sudanese Government won't listen to 
reason, maybe they will listen to the sound of quiet cash registers.
  We send a clear message that we will not forget the people of Darfur.
  From small groups like ``Dear Sudan, Love Petaluma'' in my hometown 
to larger relief organizations like UNICEF, we are committed to peace 
and to a future of hope.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 180, The 
Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act, I am pleased to see this bill 
brought before the full House and I urge all our colleagues to vote for 
its final passage.
  The Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act is an important part of 
our ongoing efforts here in Congress to influence, pressure and alter 
the conduct of the Sudanese regime, the government complicit in the 
genocide being perpetrated and abetted in Darfur. The deaths of 450,000 
innocent women, men and children and the displacement of 2 million 
others demand nothing less.
  H.R. 180 comes amidst recent reports of additional population 
displacements of about 12,000 households in West Darfur. Those who are 
fleeing express fears of attacks by Sudanese government forces in 
addition to general insecurity in that area.
  Despite the Sudanese government's announcement that it will accept a 
proposed hybrid UN-African Union peacekeeping operation in Darfur, it 
will take far more action on the part of the Bashir regime to convince 
me--and I am certain my other colleagues here in the House as well--
that it is finally succumbing to the world's outcry for peace. 
Withdrawing American investments, both public and private, from Sudan 
will help to ensure that we get that government's attention.
  On August 1, 2005, my home State of New Jersey became the first State 
to divest from Sudan. Earlier that year, Representative Don Payne and I 
had sent a joint letter to State leaders encouraging this action. Our 
NJ law directs the State Treasury to divest State pension funds from 
foreign companies doing business with Sudan until the Sudanese 
government stops the genocide that is ravaging that country. Eighteen 
other States have since followed New Jersey's lead and have adopted 
divestment policies.
  Mr. Speaker, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global 
Human Rights and International Operations, I advocated forcefully for 
divestment provisions in the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 
2006. Unfortunately, the Senate removed those provisions prior to final 
passage of the bill. I am pleased that H.R. 180 revisits the 
divestiture issue and builds on those initial efforts in several 
important ways.
  H.R. 180 requires that the Secretary of the Treasury publish every 
six months a list of companies that have a direct investment or are 
conducting business operations in Sudan's power, mineral, oil or 
military equipment industries. The bill excludes several important 
categories of companies, including those that are dealing directly with 
the government of southern Sudan or that are helping the marginalized 
populations.
  Companies that are on the Treasury list will not be able to enter 
into or renew contracts with the United States Government. State and 
local governments may also authorize prohibitions for those governments 
to enter into or renew contracts with these companies. The

[[Page H8854]]

bill further authorizes State and local governments to divest based 
either on this list created by the Treasury or on a list that they 
create on their own, without risking a lawsuit by doing so.
  Perhaps most importantly, H.R. 180 provides a safe harbor for mutual 
and pension funds by allowing them to divest from companies on the 
Treasury list without risk of a lawsuit alleging that they are failing 
to invest in a manner that brings about the highest yield. All of these 
measures will provide the practical and legal foundation for our 
country to do what is in our national tradition--to place the dignity 
of the human person and the well-being of our brothers and sisters, 
regardless of where they live or their national or ethnic identity, 
above financial and commercial interests.
  Promoting fundamental human rights and removing financial support 
from those who subsidize an abusive regime in Darfur is clearly in the 
best interests of the Sudanese people as well as our U.S. foreign 
policy. I urge my colleagues to support The Darfur Accountability and 
Divestment Act.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 180 is premised on the assumption that. 
divestment, sanctions, and other punitive measures are effective in 
influencing repressive regimes, when in fact nothing could be further 
from the truth. Proponents of such methods fail to remember that where 
goods cannot cross borders, troops will. Sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, 
and numerous other countries failed to topple their governments. Rather 
than weakening dictators, these sanctions strengthened their hold on 
power and led to more suffering on the part of the Cuban and Iraqi 
people. To the extent that divestment effected change in South Africa, 
it was brought about by private individuals working through the market 
to influence others.
  No one denies that the humanitarian situation in Darfur is dire, but 
the United States Government has no business entangling itself in this 
situation, nor in forcing divestment on unwilling parties. Any further 
divestment action should be undertaken through voluntary means and not 
by government fiat.
  H.R. 180 is an interventionist piece of legislation which will extend 
the power of the Federal Government over American businesses, force 
this country into yet another foreign policy debacle, and do nothing to 
alleviate the suffering of the residents of Darfur. By allowing State 
and local governments to label pension and retirement funds as State 
assets, the Federal Government is giving the go-ahead for State and 
local governments to play politics with the savings upon which millions 
of Americans depend for security in their old age. The safe harbor 
provision opens another dangerous loophole, allowing fund managers to 
escape responsibility for any potential financial mismanagement, and it 
sets a dangerous precedent. Would the Congress offer the same safe 
harbor provision to fund managers who wish to divest from firms 
offering fatty foods, growing tobacco, or doing business in Europe?
  This bill would fail in its aim of influencing the Government of the 
Sudan, and would likely result in the exact opposite of its intended 
effects. The regime in Khartoum would see no loss of oil revenues, and 
the civil conflict will eventually flare up again. The unintended 
consequences of this bill on American workers, investors, and companies 
need to be considered as well. Forcing American workers to divest from 
companies which may only be tangentially related to supporting the 
Sudanese government could have serious economic repercussions which 
need to be taken into account.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I had the opportunity 
to travel as part of a bipartisan Congressional Delegation to the war-
torn nation of Sudan and see first-hand one of the worst humanitarian 
crises in recent times. As a nation dedicated to freedom and the rights 
of the individual, the United States has a responsibility to speak out 
when those rights are violated, whether at home or abroad.
  Last week I traveled with the same bipartisan delegation to the 
United Nations (U.N.) to press U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for 
immediate U.N. action in Darfur. It is apparent that the U.N. is not 
moving fast enough in ending this genocide. The entire world is 
watching the U.N. actions in Darfur. In the past, the U.N. has not 
adequately handled genocide in other countries, most recently in 
Rwanda, but this is an opportunity for the U.N. to aid millions of 
people and bring about a real and lasting change.
  Many people share frustration with me that the U.N. is not more 
effectively working to end the genocide in Darfur. These people, who, 
like me, are deeply concerned and troubled by the deplorable situation 
in Darfur, want to know what we can do to make a change in Darfur.
  This legislation gives us the tools to apply economic leverage 
against Sudan to encourage them to end the crisis in Darfur. H.R. 180, 
The Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act establishes a list of 
companies whose business in Sudan is deemed to directly or indirectly 
support the genocide. Furthermore this legislation bans federal 
contracts with such companies. This ensures that no federal dollars--
hard earned tax dollars of American families--go to support one of the 
worst humanitarian crises in recent history.
  Private citizens can also look at the list of companies whose 
business supports the genocide, and use this list to make investment 
decisions in their private lives. These people can then be assured that 
none of their money, whether through tax dollars or personal 
investments, is being used to support the genocide in Darfur.
  Many States, including Virginia, have also looked at legislation to 
divest from these companies. H.R. 180 allows States and localities to 
divest from these companies without fear of lawsuits charging that 
States are regulating foreign policy. This will protect several States 
that have already taken the lead in divesting in such companies, and 
States like mine that are still considering this option on a State 
level will know they can do so without fear of legal charges.
  This legislation is fairly balanced and does not require individuals 
or States to take action, but protects them if they so choose. 
Furthermore this legislation would sunset these sanctions when the 
genocide ends. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.
  While I have never seen anything like what I saw in Darfur, the 
situation is not completely hopeless. The humanitarian assistance the 
United States is providing is helping millions of people in desperate 
circumstances. But we must continue to do more, and we must urge the 
international community to join with us to bring an end to the 
genocide. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing to work with my 
colleagues to bring an end to this international crisis.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the United States has many tools in its 
national security arsenal. And one that is too often overlooked and 
under-utilized--despite the fact that it works--is economic leverage.
  Today, it is long past time that the United States--and the 
international community--exert maximum pressure on the Sudanese 
government to stop the suffering in Darfur, where an estimated 200,000 
to 400,000 civilians have been slaughtered and 2.5 million more have 
been driven from their homes.
  The United Nations has identified the situation in Darfur as the 
worst humanitarian and human rights crisis in the world today. The 
United States has labeled the killings there as genocide.
  We must not turn a blind eye to this horrific human suffering, which 
shocks our collective conscience. Thus, the United States must lead the 
international community in turning up the pressure on the Sudanese 
government through an effective divestment campaign similar to the one 
employed against South Africa three decades ago.
  The Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act--introduced by a leader 
on this important issue, Congresswoman Lee--seeks to utilize targeted 
divestment to exert further pressure on the Bashir government in 
Khartoum.
  This legislation requires the Treasury Secretary to establish a list 
of companies whose business activities in Sudan directly support the 
genocidal practices of the Bashir regime in Khartoum. The measure also 
authorizes State and local governments which choose to divest their 
pension fund holdings from companies on the list, and it contains 
``safe harbor'' provisions for managers of mutual funds and corporate 
pension managers who choose to do the same even though their charters 
may mandate that they seek to maximize gains.
  Furthermore, the bill would ban U.S. Government procurement contracts 
with companies on the Treasury list and authorizes the prohibition of 
these types of contracts at the State and local level.
  The fact is, while the United States currently prohibits companies 
from conducting business operations in Sudan, millions of Americans are 
inadvertently supporting Bashir's government by investing in foreign 
companies that conduct business operations there.
  According to the Sudan Divestment Task Force, the Khartoum regime 
``relies heavily on foreign investment to fund its military and the 
brutal militias seeking to eliminate the non-Arab population of 
Darfur.'' In fact, it is estimated that as much as 70 to 80 percent of 
oil revenue in Sudan is funneled directly into the military.
  Given our experience in South Africa, we know that increasing 
economic pressure through targeted divestment can work. We have been 
talking with the Bashir government for years now--with little effect. 
It is time to leverage our dollars in an attempt to stop the suffering 
in Darfur.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 180, the Darfur 
Accountability and Divestment Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 
180 and a member of the Financial

[[Page H8855]]

Services Committee, which passed this bill last week.
  The ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan already is 
believed to have caused the deaths of almost half a million people. 
More than 200,000 people have been killed by Sudanese government forces 
and armed militias since 2003, and another 200,000 people have died as 
a result of the deliberate destruction of homes, crops and water 
supplies and the resulting conditions of famine and disease. More than 
2.5 million people have been displaced.
  According to a recent United Nations report, attacks against 
humanitarian aid workers have increased 150 percent in the past year. 
There are currently 13,000 humanitarian aid workers in Darfur, 
providing aid to more than 4 million people, and violence limits their 
ability to reach people in need. In June, approximately one in six 
humanitarian convoys leaving the capitals of Darfur provinces were 
ambushed by armed groups. About two-thirds of the population of Darfur 
is dependent upon these courageous aid workers and the aid they bring.
  Early in 2006, I visited the Darfur region with my good friend from 
California, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and I was deeply disturbed by what I 
saw. As far as the eyes could see, there were crowds of displaced 
people who had been driven from their homes, living literally on the 
ground with little tarps just covering them. That was over a year ago, 
and yet this genocide has been allowed to continue.
  The world stood by and watched the genocide that occurred in Rwanda. 
The world has noted over and over again the atrocities of the 
Holocaust. Yet we cannot seem to get the international community to 
move fast enough to stop the genocide that is taking place in Darfur.
  The Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act is a concrete proposal 
to impose sanctions on the Government of Sudan and on corporations that 
continue to do business with this genocidal regime. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this bill, and I hope that it will be enacted and 
implemented in time to save lives, allow humanitarian aid to continue, 
and force the Government of Sudan to stop this genocide.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 180, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________