[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 25]
[Senate]
[Pages 33994-33998]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            SUDAN ACCOUNTABILITY AND DIVESTMENT ACT OF 2007

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 458, S. 2271.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2271) to authorize State and local governments 
     to divest assets in companies that conduct business 
     operations in Sudan, to prohibit United States Government 
     contracts with such companies, and for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to speak about the Sudan 
Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007. This bill was approved 
unanimously by the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
Committee, and I am pleased to report that, in the same bipartisan 
spirit, it will soon be approved by the full Senate. I am indebted to 
Ranking Member Shelby for his tremendous collaboration on this 
important measure. And I want to recognize Senator Durbin, as well--few 
have been stronger leaders of the divestment effort, or fiercer 
advocates for the people of Darfur.
  This bill is aimed at ending the Darfur genocide. I strongly believe 
that it is our responsibility to help bring that end about--not simply 
because genocide, everywhere and always, imposes a grave moral 
obligation on those with the power to stop it, but because many of us 
share responsibility for this genocide in a much more concrete way.
  Consider this hypothetical: One of our 50 States invests its 
employees' pension funds in a wide range of stocks. Some of those 
dollars end up supplying capital to a multinational corporation, one of 
whose subsidiaries operates in Sudan--mining, say, for copper or gold. 
That firm pays the Sudanese government for mining rights, and in the 
fullness of time, money that began in America finds its way into the 
blood-stained coffers of Omar al-Bashir. What could those dollars 
become at last? A plane dropping fire on a Darfuri village; a knife 
held to a woman's throat; weapons of murder and rape.
  It is a chain of cause and effect in which American money may finally 
objectively fund genocide--in which Americans may come to pay, through 
no fault or intention of their own, for crimes they abhor. If 
responsibility means anything, it exists at every step of that chain. 
To be sure, it grows heavier at each step; but just as it is certain at 
the last step, it is present at the first.
  That is why those who have recognized their place in that chain and 
who have resolved to break it deserve our blessing and our support. 
Twenty-one states have begun to divest from Sudan, and similar work is 
underway in about 20 more. At least 55 colleges and universities have 
divested, and efforts are underway at about 50 more. Many large cities, 
non-profits, and pension and mutual funds have joined this campaign--a 
campaign that recognizes that our responsibility for Darfur can go 
beyond speaking out, to actively depriving the Sudanese government and 
the Janjaweed militia of some of their means of murder. Along with 
sanctions, Security Council resolutions, and a combined UN/African 
Union force, divestment is part of a global movement to cut off funding 
and end, at long last, the Darfur genocide. Even if it succeeds, it 
will have come more than 450,000 lives too late; but lost time and lost 
lives should only fire our urgency.
  The Accountability and Divestment Act is Congress's latest step to 
aid this global movement. It helps Americans to divest from firms whose 
business props up the Sudanese regime, it gives them the tools to make 
socially responsible investment decisions, and it ensures that 
investors who choose to divest will be held harmless for those 
decisions. The bill has five key provisions.
  First, it explicitly authorizes states and localities to divest from 
companies involved in those economic sectors that, by its own 
admission, are Khartoum's main sources of foreign investment--
petroleum, mining, and power production--along with military 
production. Investment in these sectors, more than any others, is 
propping up the Bashir regime and enabling its intransigence.
  The divestment standards set by this bill are universal. It allows 
divestment to take place in a unitary, federally sanctioned manner. 
That alone should contradict the claim that this bill somehow violates 
the Constitution's Supremacy Clause by establishing ``50 different 
foreign policies.'' Moreover, state divestment could hardly be 
considered unconstitutional when it is explicitly authorized on the 
federal level. Paul H. Schwartz, legal counsel to the Sudan Divestment 
Task Force, and former clerk to two Supreme Court Justices, made the 
case convincingly:

       It is only logical that when a bill authorizing state 
     measures touching on foreign affairs becomes federal law, the 
     federal government has expressed a judgment that the measures 
     do not ``intrude'' into or ``interfere'' with federal foreign 
     policy, but rather complement that policy.

  That is exactly what this legislation does. It outlines a targeted, 
federal divestment policy and authorizes states and investors to act 
consistently with that policy if they so choose. In doing so, the bill 
protects the investors' right to be guided by conscience; it also 
allows investors to protect themselves from the financial and 
reputational risks posed by an affiliation with Khartoum.
  Second, this bill allows mutual fund and corporate pension fund 
managers to cut ties, at their discretion, with companies involved in 
the 4 key sectors. It also offers limited protection from lawsuits for 
those choosing to divest, while preserving their normal fiduciary 
duties.

[[Page 33995]]

  Third, it establishes the sense of Congress that private pension 
managers are already authorized to divest their public pension funds 
from businesses in the 4 sectors, in accordance with existing 
Department of Labor regulations.
  Fourth, it requires federal contractors to certify that they do not 
do business with firms involved in the 4 sectors, and it provides 
several punitive options, including debarment, if those contractors are 
found to be lying. The bill does, however, authorize the President to 
grant contractors a waiver if their operations in Sudan are found to be 
in the national interest; and it adds an extra level of accountability 
by mandating that the President report these exceptions to Congress on 
a case-by-case basis.
  I am aware that some have argued for an additional waiver on the 
basis of ``substantial humanitarian work'' in Sudan, but I believe that 
that criterion would fit within any conception of the national 
interest, properly understood. In the end, the exposure mandated by the 
president's case-by-case reports to Congress will be the best deterrent 
to firms that seek waivers on spurious grounds: They will be exposed to 
the whole nation and forced to justify their actions to a highly 
skeptical public.
  Fifth, the bill's authorities terminate when the government of Sudan 
ends its murderous policies and returns to the community of law-abiding 
nations. The divestment campaign will end when, and only when, Sudan 
fully accepts the presence of the joint UN/AU peacekeeping force, 
ceases attacks on civilians, demilitarizes the Janjaweed militia, 
allows the unfettered delivery of humanitarian relief, and grants the 
right of return to refugees. Anything short of those targets, 
divestment must and will continue.
  The international divestment campaign exists precisely to pressure 
Khartoum to meet those goals. It is stunning, Mr. President, that 
pressure should even be needed to force a sovereign nation to end 
targeted attacks on civilians. Yet that is the case; that is the 
radical evil we face.
  Even still, some in this administration are urging us to treat 
Khartoum with kid gloves at this delicate time for peace negotiations, 
as the Justice Department put it in a letter 2 months ago. That would 
be the same administration whose Special Envoy to Sudan declared 
American action on the genocide imminent 11 months ago. That would be 
the same administration whose president declared the crimes in Darfur 
``genocide'' more than two years ago, and has done next to nothing of 
substance since.
  Ironically, one of those few substantive actions has been to endorse 
a bill that originated in the Senate, the International Emergency 
Economic Powers Enhancement Act, which strengthened penalties on 
companies violating U.S. sanctions. That bill was approved unanimously 
by the Senate Banking Committee and adopted unanimously by this 
Congress. That bill, like this one, targets the Khartoum regime's 
financial supports; that bill, like this one, comes at a ``delicate 
time'' for negotiations. As my colleague Senator Menendez asked an 
official of the State Department at a recent hearing of the Senate 
Banking Committee:

       What is the difference? You have a sanctions regime that 
     you are all enthusiastically pursuing before the peace 
     conference in Tripoli, and yet you are back-pedaling on this 
     effort.

  Honestly, I can't see my way through the contradiction. If the 
administration endorsed tough measures then, it should do the same now, 
and if it wants to shirk our responsibility altogether, it should tell 
us why.
  Of course, as the Administration has stalled and insisted that we 
refrain from approving this critical legislation, talks have broken 
down. The Tripoli conference that the State Department had been 
heralding as a great breakthrough at the Banking Committee's October 
3rd hearing ended up being canceled.
  The truth is that economic pressure has seemed to be the only tool 
that's proven successful in bringing Khartoum back to the table in the 
first place. That truth is in keeping with everything the regime has 
shown us in its 18 years of existence. As John Prendergast, Co-Chair of 
the ENOUGH Project and former National Security Council and State 
Department Official, told the Banking Committee during our hearing.

       Four times in 18 years, we have been able to change the 
     policies of the Government of Sudan.

  In the mid-1990s, Khartoum renounced its support for international 
terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda. Why? International 
pressure and multilateral sanctions from the United States, its allies, 
and the Security Council.
  In the same decade, Sudan ended its support of the slave trade. Why? 
Again, multilateral sanctions led by the Security Council.
  In 2005, the government signed a peace deal with rebels, ending a 
civil war that had taken 2 million lives. Why? In large part, because 
of a coordinated divestment campaign and Congress's passage of the 
Sudan Peace Act, which condemned the government's human rights record.
  Just this year, the government acquiesced in the UN/AU peacekeeping 
force. Why? Largely because of economic pressure from China.
  Four times, the international community has brought some measure of 
control to Khartoum's criminal behavior, and there is one common 
thread: sustained pressure. As Prendergast put it, the only way to end 
the genocide is if ``multilateral, targeted pressures are increased.'' 
Conversely, ``the deadly mistake that has been made for Darfur 
repeatedly during the last 4\1/2\ years is to do precisely as the 
administration proposes now to reduce pressure, to let up.''
  After all, it makes perfect sense. What do we expect from those 
capable of presiding over all this blood? What do we expect from 
killers who, in the words of one survivor, ``are happy when they rape 
they sing when they rape''?
  Do we expect them to listen politely to our objections? Do we expect 
to change their minds?
  No. All of our prayers, no matter how fervent, and all of our words, 
no matter how eloquent, are only noise to them. They do not speak the 
language of should or ought. They speak the language of must. To the 
genocidal killers and their sponsors, this bill is one more word in the 
only language they know.
  And given everything we have learned from history and from simple 
common sense, all the talk of kid gloves would be hysterical--if it 
weren't infuriating.
  Even if some in this administration haven't learned the lesson, I 
have learned it in my bones. In 1945, my father, Tom Dodd, was called 
to Nuremberg, Germany, to help lead the prosecution of Nazi war 
criminals. He wrote my mother that few things were more painful than 
being away from his family. I learned to walk and talk in his absence. 
But he also wrote home: ``I will never do anything as worthwhile.''
  What, today, could be more worthwhile? What could be clearer than the 
duty we owe to the 2.5 million displaced, the orphaned, the raped, the 
dead themselves? Even if they cannot fathom the chain linking us to the 
fire falling on their villages, or the knives against their throats, we 
can; we can see it and choose to break it. Even if we bear only the 
smallest fraction of responsibility, we can choose to act as if we bore 
all of it. Measure by measure and step by step and inch by inch, we can 
choose to push with all our strength against death's machinery until it 
cracks at last.
  Here is another step. I ask my colleagues to take it with me.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have regularly come to the Senate floor 
to speak about the genocide in Darfur.
  For 4 long years, the world has watched this tragedy the killing of 
hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, the torching of entire 
villages, rape, torture, and untold human suffering.
  More than 3 years have passed since the UN Commission of Inquiry 
concluded that:

     crimes against humanity and war crimes have been committed in 
     Darfur and may be no less serious and heinous than genocide.

  Many of us on both sides of the aisle and in the international 
community

[[Page 33996]]

have repeatedly called for greater U.S. and global action to stem the 
humanitarian crisis in Darfur.
  President Bush, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and UN Secretary 
General Ban Ki-moon have all called for greater action.
  Just this week, a group calling itself the Elders including several 
Nobel Peace Prize Winners and former heads of state spoke forcefully 
for action in Darfur.
  Despite these efforts, the Sudanese government has continued to show 
its contempt for its own people and the demands of the global 
community.
  The message was loud and clear earlier this year when the UN Security 
Council voted to deploy a 26,000 member peacekeeping force to Darfur. 
This hybrid UN-African Union force will help stem the violence and 
create an atmosphere in which peace talks can move toward a long-term 
political agreement.
  With the peacekeepers set to begin deployment on January 1, we are 
once again witnessing the same old pattern from Khartoum. The Sudanese 
government is now denying deployment of non-African peacekeepers, 
despite their acceptance of this new force only a few months ago.
  We have waited long enough for this murderous government to take 
action, to stop slaughtering its own people, to stop thumbing its nose 
at the international community.
  That is why I commend the Senate for its action today to encourage 
cooperation by the Sudanese government.
  Earlier this year, I introduced 2 bills that would have increased 
economic pressure on the Sudanese regime. Each bill supported state and 
local divestment efforts, allowing each of us to do our part to end the 
madness in Darfur by selling investments that help prop up the Sudanese 
regime.
  I am pleased that Senator Dodd, as chairman of the Banking Committee, 
has adopted ideas from these bills into the Sudan Accountability and 
Divestment Act of 2007. I thank him, as well as Ranking Member Shelby 
and others who have worked on this bill especially Senators Cornyn and 
Brownback, who joined me as lead sponsors of the legislation I had 
introduced.
  I urge my colleagues to support this critically-important 
legislation, and I look forward to working with the House to send it to 
the President for his signature as soon as possible.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am proud that the Senate will have taken 
strong action tonight to help stop the genocide in Darfur. I would like 
to commend Senator Dodd for his hard work to get the Sudan 
Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 passed. I would also like to 
congratulate Senator Durbin who was the lead cosponsor of the first 
legislation on this issue.
  By passing this bill, the Senate is saying clearly to the government 
of Sudan that the American people do not want to fund genocide. We 
already have a wide range of sanctions against Sudan, but this bill 
closed an important loophole by targeting pension plans. The 
legislation would make sure that the money we put away each month for 
our retirement does not go to fund companies which support the 
genocidal regime in Sudan.
  The House has already passed similar legislation with an 
overwhelming, and bipartisan, vote of 418-1. With Senate passage, we 
will hopefully be able to move quickly to turn this bill into the law 
of the land.
  As we pass this legislation the crisis in Darfur continues, with 
nearly 2 million people displaced and an estimated 450,000 people 
killed. The real hope for the people of Darfur is a strong UN-AU 
peacekeeping force. But President Bashir is once again keeping that 
force from moving forward, putting a man indicted by the International 
Criminal Court for war crimes on the committee overseeing these 
peacekeepers. He also continues to put other roadblocks in front of the 
peacekeepers, who should be in place and operating by January 1.
  This legislation sends a loud and a clear message to the Sudanese 
regime that they must stop standing in the way of full implementation 
of the AU-UN peacekeepers. I hope that President Bashir is listening 
and that we will see that AU-UN force operational by January 1 of next 
year. The U.S. Senate will be watching, the United Nations will be 
watching, and the eyes of the world are on President Bashir. We all 
have a moral obligation to end the genocide, stop the violence, and 
relieve the suffering of the people of Darfur.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be 
considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read the third time 
and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any 
statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3846) was agreed to, as follows:

       On page 5, line 20, insert ``parent company,'' after 
     ``subunit,''.
       On page 7, strike lines 1 through 15.
       On page 9, line 18, insert ``or'' after the semicolon.
       On page 9, strike lines 19 through 21.
       On page 9, line 22, strike ``(G)'' and insert ``(F)''.
       On page 10, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
       (3) Applicability.--The measure shall not apply to a person 
     that demonstrates to the State or local government that the 
     person does not conduct or have direct investments in 
     business operations described in subsection (d).
       (4) Sense of congress on avoiding erroneous targeting.--It 
     is the sense of Congress that a State or local government 
     should not adopt a measure under subsection (b) with respect 
     to a person unless the State or local government has made 
     every effort to avoid erroneously targeting the person and 
     has verified that the person conducts or has direct 
     investments in business operations described in subsection 
     (d).
       On page 10, lines 24 and 25, strike ``, directly or 
     indirectly,''.
       On page 16, strike lines 9 through 16.
       On page 16, line 17, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       On page 17, line 3, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       On page 17, line 11, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(e)''.

  The bill (S. 2271), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a 
third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

                                S. 2271

       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 ``Sudan Accountability and 
     Divestment Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Select Committee 
     on Intelligence of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Financial Services, the Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs, and the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
       (2) 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.
       (3) Executive agency.--The term ``executive agency'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 4 of the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403).
       (4) Government of sudan.--The term ``Government of 
     Sudan''--
       (A) 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
       (B) does not include the regional government of southern 
     Sudan.
       (5) Marginalized populations of sudan.--The term 
     ``marginalized populations of Sudan'' refers to--
       (A) adversely affected groups in regions authorized to 
     receive assistance under section 8(c) of the Darfur Peace and 
     Accountability Act (Public Law 109-344; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note); 
     and
       (B) marginalized areas in Northern Sudan described in 
     section 4(9) of such Act.
       (6) 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.
       (7) Mineral extraction activities.--The term ``mineral 
     extraction activities'' means

[[Page 33997]]

     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.
       (8) Oil-related activities.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term ``oil-related activities'' means--
       (i) exporting, extracting, producing, refining, processing, 
     exploring for, transporting, selling, or trading oil; and
       (ii) constructing, maintaining, or operating a pipeline, 
     refinery, or other oilfield infrastructure.
       (B) Exclusions.--A person shall not be considered to be 
     involved in an oil-related activity if--
       (i) the person 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); or
       (ii) the person is involved in leasing, or owns, rights to 
     an oil block in Sudan but is not involved in any other 
     activity described in subparagraph (A).
       (9) Person.--The term ``person'' means--
       (A) a natural person, 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 (22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(3))); and
       (C) any successor, subunit, parent company or subsidiary of 
     any entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
       (10) Power production activities.--The term ``power 
     production activities'' means any business operation that 
     involves a project commissioned by the National Electricity 
     Corporation of Sudan or other similar entity of the 
     Government of Sudan whose purpose is to facilitate power 
     generation and delivery, including establishing power-
     generating plants or hydroelectric dams, selling or 
     installing components for the project, or providing service 
     contracts related to the installation or maintenance of the 
     project.
       (11) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, 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.
       (12) State or local government.--The term ``State or local 
     government'' includes--
       (A) any State and any agency or instrumentality thereof;
       (B) any local government within a State, and any agency or 
     instrumentality thereof;
       (C) any other governmental instrumentality; and
       (D) any public institution of higher education within the 
     meaning of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 
     et seq.).

     SEC. 3. AUTHORITY OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO DIVEST 
                   FROM CERTAIN COMPANIES DIRECTLY INVESTED IN 
                   CERTAIN SUDANESE SECTORS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the United States Government should support the decision of 
     any State or local government to divest from, or to prohibit 
     the investment of assets of the State or local government in, 
     a person that the State or local government determines poses 
     a financial or reputational risk.
       (b) Authority To Divest.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a State or local government may adopt and 
     enforce measures that meet the requirements of subsection (e) 
     to divest the assets of the State or local government from, 
     or prohibit investment of the assets of the State or local 
     government in, persons that the State or local government 
     determines, using credible information available to the 
     public, are conducting or have direct investments in business 
     operations described in subsection (d).
       (c) Notice to Department of Justice.--Not later than 30 
     days after adopting a measure pursuant to subsection (b), a 
     State or local government shall submit written notice to the 
     Attorney General describing the measure.
       (d) Business Operations Described.--
       (1) In general.--Business operations described in this 
     subsection are business operations in Sudan that include 
     power production activities, mineral extraction activities, 
     oil-related activities, or the production of military 
     equipment.
       (2) Exceptions.--Business operations described in this 
     subsection do not include business operations that the person 
     conducting the business operations can demonstrate--
       (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; or
       (F) have been voluntarily suspended.
       (e) Requirements.--Any measure taken by a State or local 
     government under subsection (b) shall meet the following 
     requirements:
       (1) Notice.--The State or local government shall provide 
     written notice and an opportunity to comment in writing to 
     each person to whom a measure is to be applied.
       (2) Timing.--The measure shall apply to a person not 
     earlier than the date that is 90 days after the date on which 
     written notice is provided to the person under paragraph (1).
       (3) Applicability.--The measure shall not apply to a person 
     that demonstrates to the State or local government that the 
     person does not conduct or have direct investments in 
     business operations described in subsection (d).
       (4) Sense of congress on avoiding erroneous targeting.--It 
     is the sense of Congress that a State or local government 
     should not adopt a measure under subsection (b) with respect 
     to a person unless the State or local government has made 
     every effort to avoid erroneously targeting the person and 
     has verified that the person conducts or has direct 
     investments in business operations described in subsection 
     (d).
       (f) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Investment.--The ``investment'' of assets, with respect 
     to a State or local government, includes--
       (A) a commitment or contribution of assets;
       (B) a loan or other extension of credit of assets; and
       (C) the entry into or renewal of a contract for goods or 
     services.
       (2) Assets.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term ``assets'' refers to public monies and includes any 
     pension, retirement, annuity, or endowment fund, or similar 
     instrument, that is controlled by a State or local 
     government.
       (B) Exception.--The term ``assets'' does not include 
     employee benefit plans covered by title I of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1001 et 
     seq.).
       (g) Nonpreemption.--A measure of a State or local 
     government authorized under subsection (b) is not preempted 
     by any Federal law or regulation.
       (h) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this 
     section applies to measures adopted by a State or local 
     government before, on, or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Notice requirements.--Subsections (c) and (e) apply to 
     measures adopted by a State or local government on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. SAFE HARBOR FOR CHANGES OF INVESTMENT POLICIES BY 
                   ASSET MANAGERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 13 of the Investment Company Act 
     of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-13) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(c) Limitation on Actions.--
       ``(1) In general.--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 any employee, officer, director, or 
     investment adviser thereof, based solely upon the investment 
     company divesting from, or avoiding investing in, securities 
     issued by persons that the investment company determines, 
     using credible information that is available to the public, 
     conduct or have direct investments in business operations in 
     Sudan described in section 3(d) of the Sudan Accountability 
     and Divestment Act of 2007.
       ``(2) Applicability.--
       ``(A) Actions for breaches of fiduciary duties.--Paragraph 
     (1) does not prevent a person from bringing an action based 
     on a breach of a fiduciary duty owed to that person with 
     respect to a divestment or non-investment decision, other 
     than as described in paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Disclosures.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a 
     registered investment company, or any employee, officer, 
     director, or investment adviser thereof, unless the 
     investment company makes disclosures in accordance with 
     regulations prescribed by the Commission.
       ``(3) Person defined.--For purposes of this subsection the 
     term `person' includes the Federal Government and any State 
     or political subdivision of a State.''.
       (b) SEC Regulations.--Not later than 120 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission shall prescribe regulations, in the 
     public interest and for the protection of investors, to 
     require disclosure by each registered investment company that 
     divests itself of securities in accordance with section 13(c) 
     of the Investment Company Act of 1940. Such rules shall 
     require the disclosure to be included in the next periodic 
     report filed with the Commission under section 30 of such Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 80a-29) following such divestiture.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING CERTAIN ERISA PLAN 
                   INVESTMENTS.

       It is the sense of Congress that a fiduciary of an employee 
     benefit plan, as defined in

[[Page 33998]]

     section 3(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
     of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002(3)), may divest plan assets from, or 
     avoid investing plan assets in, any person the fiduciary 
     determines is conducting or has direct investments in 
     business operations in Sudan described in section 3(d) of 
     this Act, without breaching the responsibilities, 
     obligations, or duties imposed upon the fiduciary by section 
     404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 
     (29 U.S.C. 1104), if--
       (1) the fiduciary makes such determination using credible 
     information that is available to the public; and
       (2) such divestment or avoidance of investment is conducted 
     in accordance with section 2509.94-1 of title 29, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (as in effect on the day before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act).

     SEC. 6. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.

       (a) Certification Requirement.--The head of each executive 
     agency shall ensure that each contract entered into by such 
     executive agency for the procurement of goods or services 
     includes a clause that requires the contractor to certify to 
     the contracting officer that the contractor does not conduct 
     business operations in Sudan described in section 3(d).
       (b) Remedies.--
       (1) In general.--The head of an executive agency may impose 
     remedies as provided in this subsection if the head of the 
     executive agency determines that the contractor has submitted 
     a false certification under subsection (a) after the date the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation is amended under subsection 
     (e) to implement the requirements of this section.
       (2) Termination.--The head of an executive agency may 
     terminate a covered contract upon the determination of a 
     false certification under paragraph (1).
       (3) Suspension and debarment.--The head of an executive 
     agency may debar or suspend a contractor from eligibility for 
     Federal contracts upon the determination of a false 
     certification under paragraph (1). The debarment period may 
     not exceed 3 years.
       (4) Inclusion on list of parties excluded from federal 
     procurement and nonprocurement programs.--The Administrator 
     of General Services shall include on the List of Parties 
     Excluded from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs 
     maintained by the Administrator under part 9 of the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation issued under section 25 of the Office 
     of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 421) each 
     contractor that is debarred, suspended, proposed for 
     debarment or suspension, or declared ineligible by the head 
     of an executive agency on the basis of a determination of a 
     false certification under paragraph (1).
       (5) Rule of construction.--This section shall not be 
     construed to limit the use of other remedies available to the 
     head of an executive agency or any other official of the 
     Federal Government on the basis of a determination of a false 
     certification under paragraph (1).
       (c) Waiver.--
       (1) In general.--The President may waive the requirement of 
     subsection (a) on a case-by-case basis if the President 
     determines and certifies in writing to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that it is in the national interest 
     to do so.
       (2) Reporting requirement.--Not later than April 15, 2008, 
     and semi-annually thereafter, the Administrator for Federal 
     Procurement Policy shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report on waivers granted under 
     paragraph (1).
       (d) Implementation Through the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory 
     Council shall amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation issued 
     pursuant to section 25 of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 421) to provide for the implementation 
     of the requirements of this section.
       (e) Report.--Not later than one year after the date the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation is amended under subsection 
     (e) to implement the requirements of this section, the 
     Administrator of General Services, with the assistance of 
     other executive agencies, shall submit to the Office of 
     Management and Budget and the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report on the actions taken under this section.

     SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON EFFORTS BY OTHER COUNTRIES.

       It is the sense of 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, 
     such persons.

     SEC. 8. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS IN SUDAN.

       It is the sense of Congress that the President should--
       (1) continue to work with other members of the 
     international community, including the Permanent Members of 
     the United Nations Security Council, the African Union, the 
     European Union, the Arab League, and the Government of Sudan 
     to facilitate the urgent deployment of a peacekeeping force 
     to Sudan; and
       (2) bring before the United Nations Security Council, and 
     call for a vote on, a resolution requiring meaningful 
     multilateral sanctions against the Government of Sudan in 
     response to its acts of genocide against the people of Darfur 
     and its continued refusal to allow the implementation of a 
     peacekeeping force in Sudan.

     SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS OF 
                   THE UNITED STATES.

       It is the sense of Congress that nothing in this Act--
       (1) conflicts with the international obligations or 
     commitments of the United States; or
       (2) affects article VI, clause 2, of the Constitution of 
     the United States.

     SEC. 10. REPORTS ON SANCTIONS IN SUPPORT OF PEACE IN DARFUR.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of State and the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report assessing the effectiveness of sanctions 
     imposed with respect to Sudan at the time the Secretary of 
     State and the Secretary of the Treasury submits reports 
     required under--
       (1) the Sudan Peace Act (Public Law 107-245; 50 U.S.C. 1701 
     note);
       (2) the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004 (Public 
     Law 108-497; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note); and
       (3) the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006 (Public 
     Law 109-344; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note).
       (b) Additional Report by the Secretary of the Treasury.--
     The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report assessing the effectiveness 
     of sanctions imposed with respect to Sudan under the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 
     et seq.) at the time the President submits the reports 
     required by section 204(c) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)) 
     with respect to Executive Order 13,067 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note; 
     relating to blocking property of persons in connection with 
     the conflict in Sudan's region of Darfur).
       (c) Contents.--The reports required by subsections (a) and 
     (b) shall include--
       (1) a description of each sanction imposed under a law or 
     executive order described in subsection (a) or (b);
       (2) the name of the person subject to the sanction, if any; 
     and
       (3) whether or not the person subject to the sanction is 
     also subject to sanctions imposed by the United Nations.

     SEC. 11. REPEAL OF REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

       Section 6305 of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, 
     Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 
     2007 (Public Law 110-28; 121 Stat. 172) is repealed.

     SEC. 12. TERMINATION.

       The provisions of sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 shall 
     terminate 30 days after the date on which the President has 
     certified to Congress that the Government of Sudan has 
     honored its commitments to--
       (1) abide by United Nations Security Council Resolution 
     1769 (2007);
       (2) cease attacks on civilians;
       (3) demobilize and demilitarize the Janjaweed and 
     associated militias;
       (4) grant free and unfettered access for delivery of 
     humanitarian assistance; and
       (5) allow for the safe and voluntary return of refugees and 
     internally displaced persons.

                          ____________________