I 117th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 9620 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES December 20, 2022 Mr. García of Illinois (for himself, Ms. Schakowsky , Ms. Omar , Mr. Pocan , and Mr. Grijalva ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services A BILL To support reparations for victims of human rights violations associated with projects financed by international financial institutions.

1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Chixoy International Financial Institution Reparations Act of 2022 . 2. Findings The Congress finds the following: (1) Beginning in 1976, the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank financed the construction of the Chixoy Dam in Guatemala while the country was in the midst of a civil war. The Armed Forces of the military Government of Guatemala were broadly and credibly accused of having committed gross violations of internationally recognized human rights during the civil war, which led the United States Government to suspend security assistance to the Government of Guatemala. (2) The construction of the Chixoy Dam forcibly displaced more than 3,500 members of the Maya Achi indigenous community and disrupted the livelihoods of thousands more. When residents of the Rio Negro community objected to leaving their homes, which were to be flooded by the construction of the dam, they were massacred, raped, and kidnapped by paramilitary and military forces. In its analysis of the Rio Negro massacres, the United Nations-sponsored Historical Clarification Commission concluded that peaceful resistance to administrative decisions related to the construction of the hydroelectric dam were conceived a priori as instigated by the guerrillas and were resolved through violent repression. Therefore, the army’s command responsibility and intent to destroy Rio Negro constituted an act of genocide against the civilian population. Between 1980 and 1982, an estimated 5,000 Maya Achi lost their lives through extrajudicial killings. (3) Effective resettlement measures were never provided for communities displaced by the Chixoy Dam project. After enduring decades of extreme poverty stemming from their displacement, in 2010, the communities and the Government of Guatemala agreed to the Reparations Plan for Damages Suffered by the Communities Affected by the Construction of the Chixoy Hydroelectric Dam in Guatemala. In 2014, the President of Guatemala asked forgiveness from the communities for the Government’s role in the harm caused by the project and signed the reparations agreement into law. The Government has not allocated the funds necessary to implement reparations. (4) Senior management at the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank knew of the atrocities that occurred during the construction of the Chixoy Dam and of the lack of resettlement. These institutions have assumed no direct responsibility for atrocities resulting from the construction of the dam. (5) International financial institutions have repeatedly financed projects that have contributed to human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, torture, forced labor, forced displacement of indigenous peoples, forced labor, arbitrary detention, loss of livelihood, and reduced access to food and water. For example, from 2007 to 2013, the World Bank funded a conservation program implemented by the Kenya Forest Service (KFS), which regularly engaged in forced evictions of forest communities. With financing from the World Bank, KFS burned the homes of Sengwer indigenous peoples and violently displaced them. Many Sengwer remain landless and impoverished, struggling to have their rights to ancestral lands respected. In 2013, the Accelerating Infrastructure Investment Facility in India financed by the Asian Development Bank resulted in gross labor violations of at least 116 workers in the construction of the subproject of Kiratpur-Nerchowk Highway. The Asian Development Bank’s subcontractor, Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services, still owes the workers back wages and unpaid benefits. (6) International financial institutions, including the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, have an obligation to comply with international law, including international human rights law, in all of their activities. (7) The United States Government has long used its voting power to advocate for strengthened accountability in international financial institutions. (8) The International Financial Institutions Act requires that the United States Government use its voice and role at the international financial institutions in which it is a shareholder to advance the cause of human rights and promote mechanisms to strengthen the environmental performance of those institutions, including strengthening organizational, administrative, and procedural arrangements within the institutions so as to ensure the sustainable use of natural resources and protect indigenous peoples. (9) The International Development and Finance Act requires the United States Government not to vote in favor of any international financial institution-financed project that would result or be likely to result in a significant effect on the human environment, unless the assessment or a comprehensive summary of the assessment has been made available to affected groups and local nongovernmental organizations. This has led directly to stronger environmental assessment policies at the international financial institutions. (10) The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 ( Public Law 113–76 ), requires the United States Government to use its voice and vote at international financial institutions to ensure that each such institution responds to the recommendations of its accountability mechanisms, and provides redress to individuals and communities that have suffered human rights violations. That Act also instructs the United States Executive Directors at the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank to report to the Committees on Appropriations on steps being taken to support the implementation of the 2010 Reparations Plan for Damages Suffered by the Communities Affected by the Construction of the Chixoy Dam Hydroelectric Dam in Guatemala. (11) In Jam v. International Finance Corporation, the Supreme Court ruled that international organizations are not absolutely immune from lawsuits in United States courts and can be sued in connection to their commercial activity. 3. Promotion of measures to provide reparations for communities damaged by projects financed by international financial institutions of which the United States is a shareholder The Secretary of the Treasury shall direct the United States Executive Director at each international financial institution to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to vigorously promote— (1) the adoption and implementation of policies that ensure that the institution does not support activities that are likely to cause or contribute to human rights violations or abuses, including by undertaking adequate, publicly available human rights assessments to become aware of and prevent potential adverse effects on human rights from any proposed projects; (2) the adoption and implementation of procedures under which individuals or communities that suffer violations of human rights resulting from any loan, grant, strategy, or policy of the institution may initiate a reparations process, outlined in a negotiated, mutually acceptable, and publicly available reparations plan; and (3) the creation of a reparations fund at the institution— (A) to which international financial institutions shall contribute a fixed percentage of the revenue earned on all lending and other investments by the institution; (B) which shall be managed by a board of directors and operated transparently and independently from the institution; and (C) which shall be dedicated to providing financial resources— (i) to support the full and effective participation of the individuals and communities in negotiations for the reparations plan referred to in paragraph (2), including technical and legal support; (ii) for the full implementation of any reparations plan negotiated by the parties; and (iii) for establishing and operating monitoring panels to review and issue independent periodic reports detailing progress and challenges encountered in implementing the reparations plan referred to in paragraph (2) and clause (ii) of this subparagraph. 4. Prohibition on favorable vote for proposal until receipt of report on its effect on human rights and corruption (a) The United States Executive Director at each international financial institution should request a report from the institution that contains— (1) an assessment, in line with international best practices, of human rights and corruption risks associated with the project, including relevant legacy issues that existed before the involvement of the institution; (2) details describing how the implementers of the project will avoid, directly or indirectly, contributing to adverse effects on local communities; and (3) plans detailing how the institution will avoid participating in corrupt practices throughout the life cycle of the project. (b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall direct the United States Executive Director at each international financial institution to not vote in favor of a proposal to provide financial support for a project to be implemented in a country or sector if— (1) the United States Executive Director has not received the report described in subsection (a); (2) the government of the country has refused to accept or renew the mandate of a group or person acting under the authority of the United Nations or a regional intergovernmental human rights treaty body to which the country is party; or (3) the government of the country is obstructing the implementation of a reparations plan. 5. Opposition to international financial institution financing for corporation involved in a project that violates human rights The Secretary of the Treasury shall direct the United States Executive Director at each international financial institution to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to oppose the provision of financing, indefinitely or for a limited period of time, for a project of a corporation that has been involved in another project that violates internationally recognized human rights, until an independent investigation finds that the involvement of the corporation in the other project did not violate such rights or that the corporation has made full reparations or remedy. 6. Definition of international financial institution In this Act, the term international financial institution has the meaning given the term in section 1701(c)(2) of the International Financial Institutions Act.