[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17207-17208]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                SUDAN ACCOUNTABILITY AND DIVESTMENT ACT

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, just before we left for the Fourth of July 
work period, U.S. diplomats hosted a forum in Washington to bring 
together representatives from 33 countries, a host of nongovernmental 
organizations, and others interested in Sudan. The purpose of the 
gathering was to reiterate their support for Sudan's 2005 Comprehensive 
Peace Agreement, CPA, and to develop an effective way forward on Sudan. 
During the forum, leaders from Sudan's southern region and the Khartoum 
Government agreed to a joint communique highlighting ``the importance 
of credible, peaceful and transparent nationwide elections'' in 2010 
and to holding a referendum on the south's secession in 2011.
  While this appears to be a positive step on north-south relations, 
like many of my colleagues, I remain deeply concerned about the 
situation in the south and about the policies of Sudanese President 
Omar Bashir in the Darfur region--policies that have led to the murder 
of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. So while I appreciate the 
significance of the communique I remain skeptical of the Khartoum 
Government's commitment to the north-south peace process, and to fair 
elections, and hope the Obama administration will maintain pressure on 
the government of President Bashir and hold that government accountable 
for a change in direction and real results. Following up on this event, 
I wish to discuss the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 
and to update my colleagues on its recent implementation.
  In October of 2007, after months of consulting with interested 
stakeholders, I was joined by Ranking Member Shelby in introducing a 
bill that empowered our country's State and local governments to divest 
from companies with business operations in Sudan. My colleagues, 
particularly Senators Durbin and Brownback, and I were very concerned 
about the ongoing violence in Sudan, especially in the southern and 
western regions such as Darfur where the Sudanese Government arms the 
militias which have ravaged communities and killed many innocent 
people. The international community has condemned President Omar Bashir 
for his role in authorizing this genocide, and he has been indicted by 
the International Criminal Court for these crimes. Given the 
developments in Sudan and a worsening situation there, we thought it 
was imperative that we help strengthen the growing movement in the 
United States of those interested in divesting from Sudanese businesses 
whose presence serves to bolster and support Sudan's Government, 
enabling its security forces, and those militias responsible to them, 
to continue to commit these atrocities.
  By the time this bill was brought to the floor, 20 U.S. States had 
initiated some form of divestment from Sudanese firms, and divestment 
campaigns were underway in many other States. However, a Federal 
district court in Illinois had held the State's divestment law 
unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement. The Sudan 
Accountability and Divestment Act was written partly in response to 
these complications and designed to provide States and local 
governments, as well as businesses and investors, the authority and 
legal framework to proceed with divestment. The Senate passed the bill 
by unanimous consent, the House took it up and adopted it several days 
later, and the President signed it into law on December 31, 2007.
  The law was deliberate in targeting four specific economic sectors 
widely recognized as key sources of revenue for the Sudanese 
Government: oil, power production, minerals, and military equipment. 
According to one former Sudanese Finance Minister, 70 percent of the 
Khartoum Government's share of oil profits was spent on military 
equipment used to bolster militias like the janjaweed.
  According to the Sudan Divestment Task Force, since the enactment of 
our legislation, five more States have passed divestment laws targeting 
Sudan, with many State and local retirement funds divesting hundreds of 
millions of dollars in assets. Four States have prohibited contracting 
with corporations that provide support to the Sudanese Government, 
demonstrating broad-based support for the divestment movement.
  The law also serves to enable acts of conscience in the private 
sector, allowing businesses and investors the right to divest from 
Sudan-related assets without violating their normal fiduciary 
responsibilities. The number of universities, companies, and investment 
funds, as well as international and religious organizations, engaged in 
divestment is growing. For example, shareholders of Vanguard and 
Fidelity funds and pensioners from TIAA-CREF recently assembled to ask 
their managers to withdraw investments from Sudan.
  Finally, the act requires Federal Government contractors to certify 
that they are not conducting business operations in Sudan that bolster 
the Sudanese Government's capabilities. This provision was meant to 
ensure that U.S. taxpayers' money is not aiding, even indirectly, a 
regime that systematically murders its own population. Even so, some 
critics have suggested that the law's implementation at the Federal 
level has come up short, particularly regarding limits on U.S. 
Government procurement. It is critical that the U.S. Government 
enforces a fair and appropriate certification process on companies that 
are conducting

[[Page 17208]]

certain business sanctionable under the act. Additionally, updated 
information must be maintained by relevant contracting agencies. Such a 
process requires a concerted, interagency effort, not an ad hoc 
approach. Some work remains to be done to coordinate such a policy. I 
have been in contact with various Federal agencies to address these 
concerns and will continue to work with them to get this right.
  Meanwhile, various nonprofit organizations such as the U.S.-based 
Genocide Intervention Network and its newly initiated Conflict Risk 
Network are providing innovative solutions to investors who feel 
motivated to divest out of moral and prudential obligations. Thanks to 
such efforts, investors can make well-informed assessments of Sudan's 
conflict zones and understand the political and reputational risks 
associated with investments in Sudan. Moreover, States and local 
governments now have more credible information on which to base their 
divestment decisions. Save Darfur, another nonprofit organization, 
continues to educate millions of people around the world about the 
ongoing atrocities in Sudan and provides activists with effective tools 
and resources. Others are following suit.
  In the end, these efforts are being made to maintain pressure on the 
Sudanese Government and to effect positive change there. But much work 
remains to be done. Actions, not words, must be the true test of 
progress there.
  As State and local governments, businesses, and private investors 
continue to press the government in Khartoum through their divestment 
efforts, they should be applauded. But we must maintain the pressure 
and closely monitor the situation. And the Obama administration must 
stay actively and assertively involved. The President understands this, 
and I am pleased that he has appointed a new special envoy to Sudan, 
retired general Jonathan Scott Gration, to coordinate U.S. policy on 
Sudan. I look forward to working with him on these important issues. I 
hope that the many ways the international community is seeking to press 
the Sudanese Government for real change, and the many ways our 
government is joining that effort--including by tough and thoroughgoing 
implementation of the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act--will 
begin to bring critical change to this troubled region and to its 
suffering people.

                          ____________________