[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 40 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2923-S2927]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
        Lieberman, and Mr. Obama):
  S. 831. A bill to authorize States and local governments to prohibit 
the investment of State assets in any company that has a qualifying 
business relationship with Sudan; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to again raise the issue of 
Darfur. I may not match the tenacity of former Senator William 
Proxmire. You see, he came to the Senate floor every day--every day--
for 19 years urging the Senate to ratify the 1948 Convention on 
Genocide. Finally, Senator

[[Page S2924]]

Proxmire prevailed. Finally, the United States became a signatory to 
this historic international agreement. We were one of the last, but we 
were on board.
  The reason I come to the Chamber today to speak is because having 
noted the presence of the need for an international agreement on 
genocide, having acknowledged that a genocide is taking place in Darfur 
in the Sudan, a simple honest answer is we have done little or nothing 
about it.
  I have tried each week to come to the Chamber to again highlight the 
situation and to propose what the United States can do. It is worth 
putting this matter in context. Several times in the history of this 
world, we have witnessed genocides of horrific proportion. One of the 
most recently noted tragedies, of course, involved 6 million Jews and 
others who were killed in the Holocaust in World War II.
  When I was a young college student in Washington at Georgetown 
University, my first year I had an amazing professor whose name was Jan 
Karski. Karski was born in Poland. He was a member of the Polish 
underground resisting the Nazis in World War II. He used to come to our 
classes ramrod straight with military bearing, always dressed 
impeccably in starched white shirt and tie and would speak to us about 
government. He would intersperse his lectures with stories of his life.
  I was fascinated with Dr. Karski. He told the story as a young man 
coming to Washington, DC, in the midst of World War II. He came here 
because he knew what was happening. He knew about the Holocaust, he 
knew about the concentration camps, and he knew something had to be 
done. So he came to war-weary Washington and tried to find someone 
receptive to his message.
  He went from office to office, finally securing a meeting with 
President Roosevelt but never quite convincing the highest level of our 
Government in those days, trying to tell them, yes, there are 
concentration camps; yes, innocent people were being killed; yes, there 
was a Holocaust and something needs to be done.
  Dr. Karski told us in these lectures that he left Washington empty-
handed and despondent. Unfortunately, he never convinced America to 
act, and, unfortunately, the Holocaust continued.
  I used to puzzle over this and imagine: How could it be? How could 
the people of a great Nation such as America stand back and not do 
anything if people were alerting them to the reality of genocide, the 
killing of innocent people? Sadly, I have come to understand it now 
because 4 years ago we declared a genocide was taking place in Darfur 
in Sudan. It was an amazing declaration, it was a courageous 
declaration by this Bush administration. The President, along with 
Secretary of State Colin Powell, and now Secretary of State Condoleezza 
Rice, have been unsparing in their criticism of the Sudanese 
Government, and they have used that word, ``genocide.'' But the sad 
reality is, having made this declaration, we have done nothing--
nothing.
  The President said early on he would not allow a genocide to occur on 
his watch. I have reminded him--and I am sure it is painful to hear--
that his watch is coming to an end and the genocide continues and 
America continues to do nothing.
  Today I am joined by my colleagues, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, 
Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, and Senator Lieberman of Connecticut 
in introducing the Sudan Divestment Authorization Act of 2007. This 
bill is designed to support the actions of seven States that have 
already passed divestment laws and the dozens more that are considering 
legislation.
  The first of these States, I am proud to say, is the home State of 
this Senator and the Presiding Officer, the State of Illinois. Our 
friend and your former colleague, Mr. President, Jackie Collins, has 
led this fight. She is tenacious, and she is great to have on your 
team.
  Over 50 universities and municipalities have also chosen to divest 
their portfolios of companies that directly or indirectly support the 
genocidal Sudanese Government. Countless individual Americans have made 
this same choice. These States, universities, and individuals have said 
they do not want their pensions or other investments to support a 
government that is carrying out mass atrocities against its own people.
  In this morning's Washington Post, there is a graphic story written 
by Travis Fox of a visit to a refugee camp at Chad. I know the 
Presiding Officer has visited the refugee camps in Chad and has seen 
firsthand what is happening there: 230,000--230,000--Darfur refugees 
have streamed across the border and live in 12 United Nations-
administered camps.
  This heartbreaking story shows an emaciated young boy being fed by 
his mother. It goes on to say that so many of these children are dying 
of malnutrition, even in the refugee camps. They are trying to get this 
poor little boy to eat some food, which he thinks is horrible and spits 
out. He would rather go hungry than eat what he is being given.
  These children are dying in these refugee camps and, sadly, more 
people are streaming to these camps because of the ongoing genocide in 
Darfur.
  As many as 450,000 people, according to Human Rights Watch, have died 
from disease and violence in this genocide; 2.5 million people have 
been displaced since the fighting began. The United Nations reports 
that in the second half of the year 2006, 12 humanitarian workers were 
killed and 38 compounds were attacked.
  This morning's paper also includes a report that members of the 
African Union and the peacekeepers who are valiantly trying to bring 
peace to this area are now being killed as well. Mr. President, 7,000 
members of the African Union are there; 7,000 troops are policing an 
area as large as the State of Texas. Imagine, if you will, trying to 
contain the violence of a militia who is hellbent on killing innocent 
people, raping and pillaging with 7,000 soldiers. Even the best 
soldiers couldn't rise to that challenge. That is why America must rise 
to this challenge.
  As I mentioned, divestment is one tool. It is not what I would 
prefer, but it is a move in the right direction. Our bill recognizes 
that divestment should be undertaken only in rare circumstances, but 
declarations of genocide by both the President and the Congress provide 
all the justification needed for these State and local efforts which 
our bill will support.
  This bipartisan bill affirms it is the sense of Congress that States 
and other entities should be permitted to provide for the divestment of 
assets as an expression of opposition to the genocide and policies of 
the Khartoum Government.
  It also expresses the sense of Congress that such State divestment 
laws are consistent with our Constitution and that, for example, they 
do not run afoul of the foreign commerce clause of the Federal foreign 
affairs power. The bill recognizes that nongovernmental organizations 
working in Sudan on humanitarian efforts or companies that are 
operating under Federal permit or to promote health or religious 
activities, for example, should not be classified as supporting the 
Sudanese Government.
  We do not want to hinder the fine work that is being done by 
nongovernmental organizations, humanitarian organizations. What we want 
to do is put pressure on this Government in Khartoum to change this 
deadly policy which they have followed now for years.
  This is a targeted bill. It is aimed at supporting State and local 
efforts in America to do the right thing.
  Along with my colleague, Senator Brownback, last fall I sent a letter 
to every Governor in the country whose State had not divested urging 
them to do so. I sent a similar letter to every university president in 
my State making the same request. I am proud to say that Northwestern 
University in Evanston, IL, and its president, Henry Bienen, had 
already quietly taken steps to divest of major companies operating in 
Sudan. President Bienen has been to Sudan. He has had a life experience 
there. He understands this on a personal basis. I met with him. I 
applaud him for his leadership.
  Sadly, some universities have said no. Incredibly, they have said no. 
One university president of a major university in Illinois called me to 
explain why they could not bring themselves to divest of their 
investments in Sudan where this genocide is taking place. He gave a 
long, tortured explanation

[[Page S2925]]

about university policy. I asked him one question: Do you believe there 
is a genocide taking place in Darfur? There was a long silence. Then he 
said: Well, I guess I don't know. I said: Until you can answer that 
question, you shouldn't make this decision. Others have looked at the 
facts, and they have decided that genocide is taking place. I ask you: 
If you come to that same conclusion that a genocide is taking place, my 
next question is very simple and straightforward: What are you going to 
do about it?
  I believe we have a moral responsibility. It goes beyond any 
political debate and any partisanship. I am glad the cosponsors of this 
legislation, which I am now putting before the Senate, are bipartisan 
in nature.
  When I sent out these letters, incidentally, I had a wake-up call 
personally. A reporter called and said: So you are all for divestment, 
are you, Senator Durbin? Oh, yes, I am committed to it. Guess what, 
Senator. We went through the handful of mutual funds you and your wife 
own and one has investments in Sudan. I was stunned. I said: I will 
sell immediately, which I did. It wasn't very painful to my portfolio, 
but I felt a little better when it was done.
  It doesn't take much, but it is a reminder that change begins at 
home. Eleanor Roosevelt, who helped create and serve as the first chair 
of the United Nations Human Rights Commission once posed that famous 
question:

       Where, after all, do universal human rights begin?

  She answered:

       Human rights begin in small places, close to home--so close 
     and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the 
     world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the 
     neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; 
     the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the 
     places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, 
     equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. 
     Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little 
     meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold 
     them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the 
     larger world.

  That statement embodies the spirit that drives the divestment 
movement.
  The Darfur movement in this country was born on college campuses with 
idealistic youth, but it has now spread across the Nation. The effort 
to divest is a struggle that students are continuing to have with the 
administrators in my home State and across the country.
  These students are carrying on a legacy, a legacy of those students 
who came before them, who led the movement to divest from South Africa 
in order to starve apartheid, the rank discrimination and bigotry of 
our time in the great country of South Africa.
  South Africa changed because of the courage and capabilities of 
people such as Nelson Mandela, who led one of the most remarkable 
revolutions of my time. Change will come in Sudan when Sudanese leaders 
are convinced or compelled to change. But the divestment movement 
helped to drive the process in South Africa, and it can help drive the 
process in Sudan today.
  This bill is only a start, but it isn't the end of the discussion. 
Divestment is a useful tool but just that--only one tool among many we 
should be considering.
  Yesterday, the Special Envoy to Sudan, Andrew Natsios, met with 
President Bashir in Khartoum. The press reported that it was a 20-
minute meeting. I don't know how productive it was. It wasn't the first 
time they have met and, sadly, all the previous times have not led to 
any decision by the Khartoum Government to bring the militia under 
control, which is wreaking havoc and causing this genocide which is 
killing thousands and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.
  Special Envoy Natsios has talked about what now has publicly been 
disclosed and described as Plan B. The biggest export of Sudan, no 
surprise, is oil. How is the oil exported? Through different 
companies--including companies owned by the Chinese, India, and 
Malaysia. Special Envoy Natsios told us that if the Sudanese Government 
did not respond by allowing U.N. peacekeepers to come in and protect 
these innocent people living in their villages by January 1 of this 
year, he would encourage the administration to move on Plan B, which 
calls for economic sanctions against the oil transactions coming out of 
Sudan.
  January 1 has come and gone. According to the press reports, the 
President has ordered the Treasury Department to prepare a menu of 
options that would directly affect the Khartoum Government. I believe 
the President should use this list of options to enact additional 
meaningful sanctions immediately.
  I have spoken to the President twice personally. I have spoken to 
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. I have tried to raise my voice on 
every occasion to urge them to do something and do it now. People are 
dying, people are starving to death. This genocide continues on our 
watch, America.
  Today's sanctions program is based on Executive orders signed by 
President Clinton in 1997 and President Bush in 2006 and on the Darfur 
Peace and Accountability Act and a host of other laws that provide 
additional mechanisms. The menu of options is there.
  Sudan produces 500,000 barrels of oil a year, 40 percent of which is 
exported. We can find a way to stop the revenue stream leaving Sudan 
and the money coming back into that country. I hope that is on the menu 
being presented to the Government.
  New laws are not required for the President to enact these sanctions. 
He doesn't have to wait on Congress or a long debate. He has the power. 
It might, however, speed action along if Congress passed legislation to 
encourage him.
  This week, the State Department released its annual Country Reports 
on Human Rights Practices. Imagine that, the United States each year 
boldly announces a report card on the rest of the world and how well 
they are doing in the area of human rights. Let me read a portion of 
that report on Sudan, a report from our own State Department, and I 
quote:

       While all sides in Darfur violated international human 
     rights and humanitarian law, the government and the Janjaweed 
     militia continue to bear responsibility for genocide that 
     occurred in Darfur. During the year the government, Arab 
     militia forces, and Darfur rebel groups reportedly killed 
     several thousand civilians.
       By year's end, there were more than 2 million internally 
     displaced persons in Darfur, and another 234,000 that fled 
     into Chad, a neighboring country, where the U.N. High 
     Commissioner for Refugees coordinated a massive refugees 
     relief effort. According to the United Nations, more than 
     200,000 persons have died since 2003 as a result of the 
     violence and forced displacement. The government continues to 
     support the largely Arab nomad Janjaweed militia, which 
     terrorized and killed civilians, raped women, and burned and 
     pillaged the region.
       During the year, the government resumed aerial bombardment 
     of civilian targets, including homes, schools, and markets. 
     There were no reports that the government of Sudan prosecuted 
     or otherwise penalized attacking militias or made efforts to 
     protect civilian victims from attacks. Government forces 
     provided logistic and transportation support, weapons, and 
     ammunition to progovernment militias throughout the country.

  That is the report of our Government about ongoing genocide to which 
we have not responded.
  The report goes on to detail attacks by helicopter gunships and 
bombers as well as ground assaults by both Janjaweed militia and 
uniformed soldiers. It also describes widespread and systemic sexual 
violence against women and children, often carried out by men in 
uniform. Some women who reported these rapes to the Sudanese police 
were then arrested for reporting them. During this year of violence, 
the Sudanese Government conducted only one single successful 
prosecution of a rapist, a man who was convicted of assaulting an 11-
year-old girl. It is unclear how many violations have been prosecuted.
  The report from the State Department also describes how the Sudanese 
Government systematically restricts humanitarian access to Darfur. The 
Government denies and delays visas and harasses and arrests 
humanitarian workers. This is all part of an effort to cut off the food 
and medicine humanitarian groups are bringing into Darfur.

  The mere presence of international aid workers helps safeguard people 
in the camps as well. That is one more reason Khartoum tries to keep 
them out. Rebel groups add to the violence by attacking humanitarian 
workers as well, stealing their vehicles and supplies. According to the 
report, both the rebel groups and the government-supported militias use 
child soldiers to help fight their battles.

[[Page S2926]]

  The State Department's Human Rights Report is just the latest 
testament to the atrocities that continue to unfold in Darfur.
  Mr. President, it is time the world brought these crimes against 
humanity to a halt. We do that by taking steps that we can in the 
United States--starting with supporting divestment and imposing tougher 
sanctions, and we should go to the United Nations and demand a vote. We 
have been told over and over again that if we ask the United Nations to 
get involved, it is likely that one country on the Security Council--
and many point to China--will veto that request. Well, so be it. Let us 
have this vote, let us be on the record, let us say that in the midst 
of genocide, we forced the issue to a vote and the United States voted 
on the side of compassion and humanity. Let those countries threatening 
a veto explain their position.
  I thank my colleagues, Senator Cornyn, Senator Specter, and Senator 
Lieberman for joining me in this step we take today to support State 
and local divestment. Many people wonder what one or two Senators can 
accomplish. We are fortunate in the State of Illinois to have a legacy 
of some great people who have served in the Senate, from both political 
parties. The Presiding Officer and I were fortunate to count as a 
friend a former U.S. Senator, the late Paul Simon.
  In 1994, when the Rwanda genocide was unfolding, Paul Simon saw it, 
and he went to Jim Jeffords, a Republican Senator from Vermont, and he 
said: We have to do something; innocent people are being hacked to 
death in Rwanda. He and Senator Jeffords then called Romeo Dallaire, 
the U.N. Peacekeeping General in Rwanda at the time in 1994, and they 
asked: What will it take to stop the killing? He said: It will take 
5,000 equipped soldiers, and I can stop this massacre--only 5,000. So 
Senator Simon and Senator Jeffords called down to the Clinton White 
House and said: We need to talk to somebody about getting 5,000 
soldiers in to stop a massacre. Their call went unheeded. There was no 
response. President Clinton now apologizes today, saying it was one of 
the worst foreign policy decisions of his administration. I respect his 
honesty and candor, but the fact is, no soldiers were sent.
  Recently, a little over a year ago, I visited Rwanda for the first 
time. I went to Hotel Rwanda, made famous by the movie, Hotel des Mille 
Collines, where a brave little hotel manager played the role of Oscar 
Schindler in his time. He started harboring people who otherwise would 
have been killed in the streets of Kigali, Rwanda. It was harrowing to 
walk through the hotel and imagine what life was like; to know that 11 
years before, people huddled, afraid they were about to be pulled out 
and killed in the streets. You would look down at this beautiful, 
crystal-clear swimming pool and realize it was the water in that pool 
that sustained them during that period.
  I went down the hill from that hotel to a red brick Catholic church, 
known as Ste. Famille. I looked inside during the early morning, and I 
went back to the hotel. Someone in the hotel said: That is a famous 
church. A thousand people sought asylum as refugees in that church but, 
unfortunately, the doors were opened and a thousand people were hacked 
to death in that church.
  That is the reality of genocide. It is the reality of Rwanda, and it 
is the reality of Darfur. It is a reality we cannot ignore. We have the 
power. The question is, Do we have the will?
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 831

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Sudan Divestment 
     Authorization Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On July 22, 2004, the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives passed concurrent resolutions declaring that 
     ``the atrocities unfolding in Darfur, Sudan, are genocide''.
       (2) On June 30, 2005, President Bush affirmed that ``the 
     violence in Darfur region is clearly genocide [and t]he human 
     cost is beyond calculation''.
       (3) The Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006, which 
     was signed into law on October 13, 2006, reaffirms that ``the 
     genocide unfolding in the Darfur region of Sudan is 
     characterized by acts of terrorism and atrocities directed 
     against civilians, including mass murder, rape, and sexual 
     violence committed by the Janjaweed and associated militias 
     with the complicity and support of the National Congress 
     Party-led faction of the Government of Sudan''.
       (4) 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; and
       (B) to disassociate themselves and the beneficiaries of 
     their public pension and endowment funds from directly or 
     indirectly supporting the Darfur genocide.
       (5) Efforts of States and other governmental entities to 
     divest their pension funds and other investments of companies 
     that operate in Sudan build upon the legal and historical 
     legacy of the anti-apartheid movement in the United States, a 
     movement which contributed to the end of apartheid in South 
     Africa and the holding of free elections in that country in 
     1994.
       (6) Although divestment measures should be employed 
     judiciously and sparingly, declarations of genocide by 
     Congress and the President justify such action.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) States and other governmental entities should be 
     permitted to provide for the divestment of certain State 
     assets within their jurisdictions as an expression of 
     opposition to the genocidal actions and policies of the 
     Government of Sudan; and
       (2) a divestment measure authorized under section 5 does 
     not violate the United States Constitution because such a 
     measure--
       (A) is not preempted under the Supremacy Clause;
       (B) does not constitute an undue burden on foreign or 
     interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause; and
       (C) does not intrude on, or interfere with, the conduct of 
     foreign affairs of the United States.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Assets.--The term ``assets'' means any public pension, 
     retirement, annuity, or endowment fund, or similar 
     instrument, managed by a State.
       (2) 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.
       (3) Company with a qualifying business relationship with 
     sudan.--The term ``company with a qualifying business 
     relationship with Sudan''--
       (A) means any company--
       (i) that is wholly or partially managed or controlled, 
     either directly or indirectly, by the Government of Sudan or 
     any of its agencies, including political units and 
     subdivisions;
       (ii) that is established or organized under the laws of the 
     Government of Sudan;
       (iii) whose domicile or principal place of business is in 
     Sudan;
       (iv) that is engaged in business operations that provide 
     revenue to the Government of Sudan;
       (v) that owns, maintains, sells, leases, or controls 
     property, assets, equipment, facilities, personnel, or any 
     other apparatus of business or commerce in Sudan, including 
     ownership or possession of real or personal property located 
     in Sudan;
       (vi) that transacts commercial business, including the 
     provision or obtaining of goods or services, in Sudan;
       (vii) that has distribution agreements with, issues credits 
     or loans to, or purchases bonds of commercial paper issued 
     by--

       (I) the Government of Sudan; or
       (II) any company whose domicile or principal place of 
     business is in Sudan;

       (viii) that invests in--

       (I) the Government of Sudan; or
       (II) any company whose domicile or principal place of 
     business is in Sudan; or

       (ix) that is fined, penalized, or sanctioned by the Office 
     of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury 
     for violating any Federal rule or restriction relating to 
     Sudan after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (B) does not include--
       (i) nongovernmental organizations (except agencies of 
     Sudan), which--

       (I) have consultative status with the United Nations 
     Economic and Social Council; or
       (II) have been accredited by a department or specialized 
     agency of the United Nations;

       (ii) companies that operate in Sudan under a permit or 
     other authority of the United States;
       (iii) companies whose business activities in Sudan are 
     strictly limited to the provision of goods and services that 
     are--

       (I) intended to relieve human suffering;
       (II) intended to promote welfare, health, religious, or 
     spiritual activities;
       (III) used for educational purposes;
       (IV) used for humanitarian purposes; or

[[Page S2927]]

       (V) used for journalistic activities.

       (4) Government of sudan.--The term ``Government of 
     Sudan''--
       (A) means--
       (i) the government in Khartoum, Sudan, which is led by the 
     National Congress Party (formerly known as the National 
     Islamic Front); or
       (ii) any successor government formed on or after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, including the Government of 
     National Unity, established in 2005 as a result of the 
     Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan; and
       (B) does not include the regional Government of Southern 
     Sudan.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, 
     American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, and any department, agency, public university or 
     college, county, city, village, or township of such 
     governmental entity.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL DIVESTMENT 
                   MEASURES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any State may adopt measures to prohibit any investment 
     of State assets in the Government of Sudan or in any company 
     with a qualifying business relationship with Sudan, during 
     any period in which the Government of Sudan, or the officials 
     of such government are subject to sanctions authorized 
     under--
       (1) the Sudan Peace Act (Public Law 107-245);
       (2) the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004 (Public 
     Law 108-497);
       (3) the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 
     2005 (Public Law 109-177);
       (4) the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006 (Public 
     Law 109-344); or
       (5) any other Federal law or executive order.
       (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall apply to measures 
     adopted by a State before, on, or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______