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 Rep-
resentatives 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 Pre-
vention and Punishment of the Crime of Geno-
cide; 
(C) urges the Administration to seriously 
consider multilateral intervention to stop geno-
cide in Darfur should the United Nations Secu-
rity 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 Rep-
resentatives 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 commu-
nity, including the United Nations, the Euro-
pean Union, and the North Atlantic Treaty Or-
ganization (NATO), to immediately mobilize 
sufficient political, military, and financial re-
sources to support and expand the African 
Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS); 
(B) blocks assets and restricts travel of 
any individual the President determines is re-
sponsible 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 pros-
ecute 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 As-
sembly, 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 inno-
cent 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 Govern-
ment of Sudan by investing in foreign companies 
that conduct business operations in Sudan that dis-
proportionately 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 endow-
ment funds from directly or indirectly sup-
porting 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, Indi-
ana, 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 oper-
ations in Sudan. Massachusetts, Michigan, North 
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and 
Wisconsin are considering legislation to divest State 
funds from companies that conduct business oper-
ations in Sudan. Arkansas, Connecticut, Maryland, 
and Ohio have passed non-binding divestment legis-
lation 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 legisla-
tion mandating divestment of city funds from com-
panies that conduct business operations in Sudan. 
(10) American University, Amherst College, An-
dover Newton Theological School, Boston University, 
Bowdoin College, Brandeis University, Brown Uni-
versity, Colby College, Columbia University, Con-
necticut College, Cornell University, Dartmouth Col-
lege, Drew University, Duke University, Emory Uni-
versity, 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, Reconstruc-
tionist 
Rabbinical 
College, 
Regis 
University, 
Samford University, Seton Hall, Smith College, 
Stanford University, Swarthmore College, Trinity 
College, University of California, University of Colo-
rado, University of Connecticut, University of Den-
ver, University of Illinois, University of Maryland, 
University of Massachusetts, University of Min-
nesota, University of Pennsylvania, University of 
Rochester, University of Southern California, Uni-
versity of Vermont, University of Virginia, Univer-
sity 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 com-
panies 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 di-
vestment policies. 
(12) Economic pressure against the Govern-
ment 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 Com-
prehensive Peace Agreement of 2005. 
(13) Congress acknowledges that divestment 
should be used sparingly and under extraordinary 
circumstances. This Act is based on unique cir-
cumstances, specifically, the reprehensible and ab-
horrent 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 in-
vestors and citizens even when these operations rep-
resent a small fraction of a company’s total busi-
ness. 
(15) State and city pension funds have rou-
tinely but unsuccessfully sought to acquire and uti-
lize data from the Federal Government on compa-
nies for investment decisions. 
(16) There is an increasing interest by States, 
local governments, educational institutions, and pri-
vate 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 di-
vest from companies that accept the business risk of 
operating in countries that are subject to inter-
national economic 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 sanc-
tions imposed by the United States. 
(18) The world community has a moral obliga-
tion to work to do everything possible to stop the on-
going 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 SUDA-
NESE 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 En-
ergy, the Secretary of State, the Securities and Ex-
change Commission, and the heads of other appro-
priate Federal departments and agencies, shall, 
using only publicly available (including proprietary) 
information, ensure publication in the Federal Reg-
ister of a list of each person, whether within or out-