Burma & U.S. Congress on June 26 - (r)

[FreeBurma@xxxxxxx]

Subject:  Burma & U.S. Congress on June 26 - 28, 1995 (#.2)

Attn: Burma Newsreaders
Re: Burma & U.S. Congress on June 26 - 28, 1995 (#.2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 1996 (House - June 28, 1995) 

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. RICHARDSON

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Richardson: Page 78, after line 6, insert the
following new section:

LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR BURMA 

Sec. 564. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for
International Narcotics Control or Crop Substitution Assistance for the
Government of Burma .

(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, today and this evening and this morning we have
talked about human rights violators around the world. Well, this amendment
deals with the heavyweight champion of all human rights violators, and that
is the Government of Burma , Myanmar. What this amendment does is prohibit
counternarcotics assistance to that country, both on human rights grounds and
on narcotics grounds.

Mr. Chairman, what we have here is an amendment that is supported by the
chairman of the subcommittee, by the minority, by the chairman of the
Committee on International Relations, who is doing very valuable
antinarcotics work throughout the world and especially in the Burma  area.
Mr. Chairman, I would be also honored to have the coauthor of this amendment,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], join me. I would like to
yield to him for any initiatives.
The purpose of this amendment is to prohibit counternarcotics funds for the
Government of Burma .
My intention is to prohibit the administration from using this legislation to
fund its shortsighted new drug policy initiatives toward Burma  that were
proposed last by drug czar Lee Brown.
The purpose of this amendment is to nullify the administration efforts to
start a crop substitution program with Burma , to increase funding for UNDCP
for their cooperation, and to fund NFO's activities in Burma .

I want to clarify to my colleagues that the Richardson-Rohrabacher amendment
does not obstruct the ongoing efforts of Chairman Gilman of the International
Relations Committee to find alternative approaches to combating the enormous
drug trade in Burma .
Furthermore, this amendment has no effect on the minimal presence of Drug
Enforcement Agency [DEA] representatives already in Burma 's Capital of
Rangoon.

There is a very simple logic to this amendment: We have condemned Burma  for
years for human rights abuses and child labor violations--they have made no
effort to reform--we should not reward this repressive regime with American
tax dollars now.

My most recent trip to Burma  last month was extremely disappointing on
account of the Burmese regime's retrenchment on human rights and
democratization efforts.
Burma 's ruling military junta, the State Law and Order Restoration Council
[SLORC], has established itself as the heavyweight champion of repressive
governments by violating human rights and detaining the leader of Burma 's
democratic movement Aung San Suu Kyi for the past 6 years.

This courageous woman is in house arrest without any prospect of being
released.
Recent efforts to obtain visas by the authors of this amendment have been
denied or granted only after preconditions were met.
Leading opposition members of the National League for Democracy were arrested
after I met with them last month.

Perhaps the most egregious of all human rights violations comes in the form
of Dr. Michael Aris, Aung San Suu Kyi's husband has been denied access to his
imprisoned wife.
Shortly after admitting the Red Cross to inspect prisons in Burma , the
International Committee for the Red Cross has abandoned efforts to work with
the SLORC leadership last week after the SLORC imposed unacceptable
conditions on Red Cross operations.
Dealing with the heroin crisis is an important issue before Congress and I
can sympathize with Members who have fought noble battles to rid American
streets of the drug menace.
New Mexico is not immune to this disease; I have seen the devastating effects
of heroin abuse on Indian Pueblos and the impoverished Hispanic communities
in my own district.

But these problems do not mean that American dollars should go to reward a
repressive regime with counternarcotics assistance.

The narcotics issue is a small component of an overall United States policy
shift necessary to combat the repressive Burmese regime. The
Richardson-Rohrabacher amendment is a means to a greater objective of
promoting democracy in a country that has a vital strategic interest in
Southeast Asia.

I urge Members to consider the resulting relationship forged by a
counternarcotics partnership between the United States and a military junta
that expels respected international organizations like the Red Cross while
constructing infrastructure projects with child labor.

The end of the cold war offers the United States a window of opportunity to
encourage nations to foster democracy and open their economies to free trade.
The SLORC has made it clear to myself and other Members that they are not
willing to play by these rules.

Efforts to combat the international drug trade should not blur our ability to
discipline a regime that has not made a serious attempt on its own.

Like Burma 's dismal human rights record, its unilateral efforts to counter
the narcotics threat are not impressive as they have had no major impact on
the thriving Burmese drug economy.

Instead, the SLORC concentrates on quelling border area insurgencies that
result from actions designed to crush democratic efforts and does not take
counternarcotics as a priority in these regions.

By prohibiting counternarcotics funding to the Government of Burma  the
Richardson-Rohrabacher amendment will send a signal to the SLORC that the
United States wants meaningful reform.

I commend the distinguished gentleman from New York, Ben Gilman, the chairman
of the International Relations Committee for his efforts to pursue solutions
to this problem.

I understand he has requested a GAO report to explore the possibilities of
counternarcotics assistance with local governing authorities and I am
supportive of that initiative.
I want to make it clear for the record that the language of the
Richardson-Rohrabacher amendment does not preclude any direct or indirect
counternarcotics assistance funding to regional ethnic groups in Burma  if
the GAO determines that such assistance can be provided directly to the
regional ethnic groups in Burma  and not through the SLORC.

I hope Mr. Gilman can appreciate my concern for unintended funding of SLORC
activities with money intended for counternarcotic operations.


Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague from New
Mexico very much for his leadership on this issue. There is a concern about
what is going on in Burma  right now, because the message that we send is
being heard on the other side of the world, and literally hundreds of
thousands of people's lives are at stake.

What we have in Burma  is a misinterpretation by the SLORC regime, which is
one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes on this planet. It is a
misinterpretation of some of the actions of this Congress, that in some way
we are not as committed to democracy in that country as we all are in this
body.

This message today that we are sending with this amendment is that the United
States is on the side of democracy, and we will not tolerate the brutality
and the military offensives that are being conducted by the Government of
Burma  against its own people. As we sit tonight, or should I say this
morning, on the other side of the world the Burmese military is about to
conduct another offensive against one of its ethnic peoples, the Kareni
people, who are a very small group of people that are at risk of being wiped
out by a military offensive by this very brutal regime. By what we are doing
today with this amendment, we send a message to the regime we are for
democracy, and do not terrorize your own people.


 [Page: H6538]
 
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment. In the
essence of time, I would like to revise and extend my remarks, which is a way
we can get things in the Record without taking up a lot of extra time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds in this act from being used
for narcotics control or crop substitution assistance in Burma .

Two-thirds of the heroin seized on the streets of the United States comes
from Burma . It seems to me it is in our interest to cooperate with that
government, however distasteful it may be, to reduce heroin production that
threatens the lives of American citizens. Cutting off all contact with Burma
 may only end up hurting our own citizens. In addition, the administration
opposes this amendment.

Currently the United States has been involved in multilateral assistance
through the U.N. International Drug Control Program, as well as projects with
nongovernmental organizations in minority-controlled areas. I know the
administration is considering a small program to attack heroin traffickers in
Burma  and to encourage opium farmers to produce other crops, but no
decisions have been made on the scope of such a program.

I agree with the gentleman from New Mexico that the Burmese Government is
regressive, and that human rights are routinely violated. However, I'm not
sure this amendment is the right way to deal with that problem.

On the other hand, I think I know where the votes are, and I know the
gentleman's intentions are sincere. Therefore, I am prepared to accept the
amendment on this side.

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend my colleague from New
Mexico for his leadership on this amendment and for his vigilance in watching
the situation in Burma , and his travels and all his efforts on behalf of
human rights in that part of the world. It is actually an area that has been
largely ignored. I commend the gentleman for his outstanding efforts in this
area.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Rep. SMITH
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
We all support a vigorous effort to eradicate drug production and
trafficking.
But there are two serious problems with subsidizing brutal, illegitimate
governments, no matter how pure our motives.

First, it legitimizes these dictators. A law enforcement partnership with the
United States gives any regime more international prestige. It also gives
their people a heightened sense of despair. These are the effects of our
antiimmigration deal with Fidel Castro. These are the effects of our many
concessions to the Beijing regime. The costs to human rights of any
partnership with murderers are never trivial.

Second, this kind of deal is not likely to work. If the SLORC [`slork'] cared
one bit about stopping drugs, they would have stopped the drugs. This
poisoning of our children has been going on with the full knowledge and
consent--and quite possibly the participation--of the SLORC.

Governments that kill our children do not deserve carrots. They deserve
sticks. The solution to drugs coming from Burma , like the solution from most
problems caused or exacerbated by the SLORC is international ostracism, and
the restoration of the free and democratically elected government--not more
foreign aid.
I urge a `yes' vote on the Richardson amendment.


Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of this amendment. This
amendment is necessary not only because of the profits from drugs, but
because of the children who buy them and sometimes die from them. We know
that there is a big drug problem in the Asia-Pacific region. There is even a
big drug problem on my island of Guam. This amendment sends a message that
this country will not tolerate drugs. This amendment will show that this
country will not sit down while a country we help will transform the money we
give to them into drugs. This amendment will show that this country will take
a strong stand on drugs. This amendment is just one small step to making a
big problem disappear. We may need a marathon of steps to follow, but this
represents a good beginning. This amendment will make the streets safer for
our children here and in the Asia-Pacific region. This is why we have to
thank Mr. Richardson and Mr. Rohrabacher for combining to make this
amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to
have it.

RECORDED VOTE
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 359, noes 38,
not voting 37.

-----------------------------------------------------end.