[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.
____________________