Burma & US Congress on November 1,

[FreeBurma@xxxxxxx]

Subject: Burma & US Congress on November 1, 1995

FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED 
PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996 MIDDLE EAST FACILITATION 
ACT OF 1995--CONFERENCE REPORT (Senate - November 01, 1995) 


AMENDMENT NO. 3042 TO AMENDMENT NO. 3041

(PURPOSE: TO PERMIT THE CONTINUED PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE TO BURMA ONLY IF
CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED)

Mr. McCAIN. I have a second degree perfecting amendment, which I send to the
desk. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. 
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. Kerry,  proposes
an amendment numbered 3042 to amendment No. 3041. 

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 
The amendment is as follows: 

At the end of the pending amendment add the following: 

Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, funds made available
in this Act may be used for international narcotics control assistance under
chapter 8 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or crop
substitution assistance, directly for the Government of Burma if the
Secretary of State certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that
any such programs are fully consistent with United States human rights
concerns in Burma and serve a vital United States national interest. The
President shall include in each annual International Narcotics Control
Strategy Report submitted under section 489(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291h(a)) a description of the programs funded under this
section. 

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have discussed this amendment with the
distinguished Senator from Kentucky, the manager of the bill, and with the
Senator from Vermont. I do not believe this should take very much time. 
I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? 
There is a sufficient second. 
The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would modify the provision in the
conference report that prohibits funding for international narcotics control
assistance in Burma . The amendment would modify that prohibition by
permitting such assistance only if the Secretary of State certifies to
Congress that such programs are fully consistent with the United States human
rights concerns in Burma , and that they serve a vital United States national
interest. 

I emphasize that the secretary must certify that a program such as this
serves a vital U.S. national security interest. 

That vital national interest is obvious, Mr. President. Sixty percent of the
heroin that comes to this country originates in Burma --60 percent. We have a
compelling, urgent responsibility to do whatever we can to eliminate or at
least reduce Burma 's export of that dangerous narcotic. Without a strategy
that addresses the heroin trade in Burma , we have no effective antinarcotic 
program at all. 

I can well understand the Senate's desire to influence the Burmese regime's
treatment of the Burmese people. That treatment has been abominable and well
deserves our severe reproach. I visited Burma last March and was exposed to a
pretty representative sampling of how abominable that treatment has been and
continues to be. 

Daw Aung San Kyi's release was a very welcome development. But in and of
itself it does not represent evidence of political reform or even an
indication of progress toward an objective standard of human rights in Burma
 . Burma has a very long way to go. 

I feel very strongly that the United States must actively support the cause
of human freedom in Burma , and make it unmistakably clear to Burma 's State
Law and Order Restoration Council, the SLORC, that the United States, indeed,
all of the civilized world expect them to begin respecting the will and the
rights of the Burmese people. 

But what I have difficulty understanding is why we must refrain from acting
in our own national interest while we attempt to act in the interest of the
Burmese people. I could understand the objective of this provision if it
stated that no funds for drug control could be made available directly to the
SLORC. I would not support this assistance either if the State Department
were proposing to simply provide money to the SLORC with the promise that the
SLORC would use it to eradicate poppy fields. It is quite probable that such
funds would be used by the SLORC to further oppress ethnic minorities in
Burma , like the Wa. 

But, Mr. President, that is not what the administration proposes to do with
this assistance. First, it is a relatively small amount of money that we are
talking about, with most of it going to the efforts of the United Nations
Drug Control Program [UNDCP] in Burma . Two million dollars would be provided
to the U.N. to work with ethnic minorities on crop substitution and other
programs intended to begin making some, although admittedly small, progress
in reducing poppy cultivation. None of that assistance would be funneled
through the SLORC. 

A limited--a very limited amount of assistance, $50,000, I believe--would be
provided to train Burmese customs officials. But I fail to see the harm in
that, given that the amount is so small, and the need for better Burmese
control of drug smuggling at the borders so obvious. 

Mr. President, $2 million isn't going to solve America's heroin problem. But
I do not see how we begin to get any control over that problem absent some
kind of program in Burma . 

Opium production in Burma has skyrocketed in recent years. It is, by far, the
largest heroin producing country in the world. Again, 60 percent of heroin in
the United States originates in Burma . 

The enormous increase in heroin production globally has substantially reduced
the street price of heroin while simultaneously increasing the purity, and,
consequently, the lethality of the drug. Overdoses--fatal overdoses--have
increased rapidly in the United States. 

Sadly, as long as there is demand for heroin, we will never be able to keep
it out of all our children's hands. But if in Burma and elsewhere our efforts
make some progress in restricting the flow of heroin to the United States, we
will make the drug more expensive and less readily available on our streets
that it is today. 

Mr. President, before I conclude, I should also add that in meetings attended
by American Embassy officials in Rangoon, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel
Prize winner, clearly the leader of that nation, who has been a beacon of
hope for freedom and democracy for the people of Burma and people of the
world, whose stature is such that she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and
she, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, expressed her support for counter-narcotics
assistance 
to Burma . 

In fact, she maintained such assistance would not directly or indirectly help
the SLORC to retain power and, on the contrary, might encourage the SLORC to
make additional human rights concessions. For my part, her opinion should be
what drives the decisions made here in the U.S. Senate. I think it is clearly
sufficient justification to approve of this very modest antidrug program. 

I am convinced that the counternarcotics assistance envisioned for Burma is
consistent with our human rights goals in Burma . But I repeat, to ensure
that it remains so, this amendment requires the Secretary to certify that all
the programs which our assistance would support are fully consistent with our
human rights concerns in Burma . 

Mr. President, I believe, as we have in many other countries, the United
States can advance its values and protect our national interests in Burma
simultaneously. They are not mutually exclusive and should not be treated so.


I understand the committee's motive for this provision. I must disagree with
the means by which it hopes to achieve its objective. I hope Senators also
disagree with those means and support the amendment to help in some small way
reduce the flow of heroin to the streets of America. 

Mr. President, this amendment is supported by the administration. This
amendment is supported by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. I have no brief for the
ruling junta of army officers that control Burma --their human rights record
is despicable. If any of this money were going to help that organization, I
would not be proposing it. 

We started a war on drugs some years ago, and we have either declared
unconditional surrender or we have forgotten about it. I do not know which.
Whatever, there is an increase in the use of heroin in this country. There is
an increase in the purity of that heroin. There are lethal overdoses that are
being taken of that drug as we speak. 

I believe that there are many ways to win the war on drugs. The primary one
is to reduce the demand here at home. We also must attack the supply in
whatever way we can. 

I want to point out again, Mr. President, I probably would not have proposed
this amendment if it had not been for the express support of this program by
this remarkable, extraordinary woman, a woman who transcends human events, a
woman who has suffered for her country, whose father was a martyr to an
assassin's bullet as he was the leader of this poor country. Mr. President,
if the person who clearly, if there were an election tomorrow, would win by
an overwhelming majority, a landslide, were not in support of this amendment,
I would not be proposing it, and I hope that the Members of this body will
heed her words rather than anyone else's, including my own. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. 
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in July, Suu Kyi was released after 6 years
under house arrest. It was the first glimmer of hope for Burma since the
military crackdown in 1988. As she has repeatedly and emphatically stated
since her release, nothing else has happened. She has been released and that
is it. Burma is not one step closer to implementing the results of the
elections of 
1990. 

Burmese citizens are still suffering at the hands of one of the worst police
states in the world. In fact, since Suu Kyi was released, there have been
more arrests, more Burmese men, women, and children have been forced from
their homes into concentration camps, more villages have been burned to the
ground by the government troops. 

In fact, a recent Amnesty International report asserted unequivocally that
the situation has dramatically deteriorated inside Burma in the last 2
months. Let me be clear, the situation has gotten worse since Suu Kyi's
release. 

Yet this is the very government that the amendment of my good friend from
Arizona would have us cooperate with. Reasonable people can differ about how
best to handle this situation, but I must say with all due respect to my good
friend from Arizona, I see it a little differently. A government guilty of
arbitrary detentions, torture, forced relocations, and killings is, it seems
to me, a questionable government with which to deal. 

The Assistant Secretary of State for Asia, Win Lord, shares this view. When I
asked him what were the major impediments to an effective counternarcotics
effort he said, `What is gong to solve the problem over the long run is a
popular, representative open government--all other efforts are minuscule
compared to whether you have an open system there.' I could not agree more
with Secretary Lord's statement. A military junta, with an army of 350,000,
assembled exclusively to terrorize its own people--they have no external
threats, this army is to terrorize Burmese people--a military junta about
which Assistant Secretary of State for Asian affairs, Winston Lord, has
testified, `The only impediment to cooperation on narcotics is their lack of
interest.' Their, meaning the SLORC. 

Secretary Lord has testified we can only expect to see real cooperation on
narcotics if democracy is restored. They had an election in 1990. The SLORC
did not honor the election. Suu Kyi had been under house arrest since 1988,
until this July. The situation has deteriorated since then. The question I
guess we have before us is whether cooperation with this regime will produce
a positive result. I am as concerned about the fact that 60 percent of the
heroin coming into this country is coming from Burma as anyone else. It seems
to me reasonable people can differ as to how to approach this problem, but I
think we should be moving to isolate the military junta, rather than pursuing
the amendment of my good friend from Arizona. That is why we should support
the restoration of democracy and implement the results of the 1990 election. 

Let me just conclude by noting that Suu Kyi has urged all nations to suspend
investment in Burma , to take all steps possible to isolate this pariah
regime. She opposes any efforts to legitimize this repressive regime. 

My good friend from Arizona has argued that his amendment is not about
cooperating with SLORC, but that is precisely what the State Department
budget materials recommend. That is what the State Department is in effect
recommending here. So it seems to me that is exactly what the State
Department has in mind. They are seeking funds to train SLORC in
counternarcotics efforts. 

My good friend from Arizona has indicated that he believes Suu Kyi supports
this cooperation. I know that is what the administration has represented as
her position. The administration said Suu Kyi supports this approach. 

But I might point out to my colleagues, to members of the House International
Relations Committee who met with her, and in interviews with the
international media, she has explicitly and repeatedly said she does not
support cooperation with SLORC. 

In fact, when she was advised the assistance we have provided had been used
to attack ethnic groups on the border, I was advised she was horrified. It is
the administration's interpretation of Suu Kyi's wishes that my colleague is
relying upon, and I can understand his relying on the administration, I
suppose. But there is substantial evidence, it seems to this Senator, that
the administration is not correctly relating Suu Kyi's position to us. They
are incorrectly characterizing her position. 

There are others, including the international press and members of the House
International Relations Committee, who have met with Suu Kyi and come to a
different conclusion. So reasonable people here can differ. 

I know my friend from Arizona's intentions are the best. He has been to Burma
 . He knows a lot about Southeast Asia. But it just seems to this Senator that
cooperation with SLORC is not in our best interests. It seems to this Senator
there are a number of people, both reporters and House Members, who have
spoken with Suu Kyi who reached the conclusion that she would not favor this
approach. 

I simply hope the Senate will not go on record supporting the amendment of
the Senator from Arizona. The issue of Burma is not going to go away. He is
extremely knowledgeable about Burma , has very strong opinions about Burma .
There are others of us who are also interested in what we might be able to do
to bring about the end of SLORC and the return of democracy. 

I hope we could all kind of sit down together and, not using this particular
bill as a vehicle, sit down together and figure out what our best approach to
Burma ought to be. With all due respect to my friend from Arizona, it seems
to me cooperation with SLORC on drugs would be like cooperating with Iran on
counterterrorism. It seems to me highly unlikely that this would be a
productive relationship. 

So I hope the amendment of the Senator from Arizona will not be approved. I
will make a motion to table when we finish our debate. I understand we are
going to be finishing up pretty quickly. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is recognized. 


Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I, like the distinguished chairman, cannot support
the amendment and will join in his motion to table, not because I disagree
with the Senator from Arizona in wanting to stop the flow of heroin from
Burma . I totally agree with him in wanting to do that. I acknowledge his
expertise in that part of the world. Anybody who has watched the evidence
from the various 
law enforcement and international agencies knows of the tremendous flow of
heroin from Burma . But I do not think this would stop it. In fact, I believe
it will be money basically lost. 

The SLORC itself is involved in the drug trade. They are an army that
violates the human rights of their own people. They oppress their own people.
They stop dissent in their own people. But, also, they take drug money
themselves. 

A U.N. program is not going to make any measurable difference. We are dealing
with an outlaw government. We should not be doing something that might
suggest that we accept this government in any way. These are drug dealers and
thugs. They themselves are profiting from something we would be asking them
to stop. So, while I will be happy to look at other areas when this bill next
comes up, or any other bill, I will not support this. 

I might also say I hope, having cleared 192 out of 193 amendments in
disagreement, that we might be able to send back to the other body just one
amendment in disagreement, something that will be debated and voted on
following the debate and vote on the amendment of the Senator from Arizona. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] is recognized. 

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, a cable sent back from the State Department, which
I have a copy of, concerned a long interview that took place with Aung San
Suu Kyi on July 14 of this year. I quote: 

Speaking to the Richardson-Rohrabacher amendment seeking to bar any USG drug
control assistance to Burma , Aung San Suu Kyi disapproved, opining that,
while the `stick' of impending trade sanctions had been useful in prompting
her release, offering USG counternarcotics assistance to the SLORC would be a
useful `carrot' to encourage additional progress. 

The SLORC's desire to benefit from the political legitimacy accompanying USG
drug control aid is well known, pointed out the NLD leader. She cited
exchange of information and training as two specific types of
counternarcotics assistance she could envision occurring now. 

By the way, I ask unanimous consent the entire cable be printed in the
Record. 

There being no objection, the cable was ordered to be printed in the Record
as follows: 

Sanctions and Drug Control Aid Discussed

NLD LEADER SEES DRUG CONTROL AID AS USEFUL `CARROT'

11. Speaking to the Richardson-Rohrabacher amendment seeking to bar any USG
drug control assistance to Burma , Aung San Suu Kyi disapproved, opining
that, while the `stick' of impending trade sanctions had been useful in
prompting her release, offering USG counternarcotics assistance to the SLORC
would be a useful `carrot' to encourage additional progress. 

The SLORC's desire to benefit from the political legitimacy accompanying USG
drug control aid is well known, pointed out the NLD leader. She cited
exchange of information and training as two specific types of
counternarcotics assistance she could envision occurring now. While the SLORC
would appreciate this aid, it would not improve the regime's staying power. 

12. Berkowitz expressed concern that an exchange of information on drug
traffickers and operations with the Burmese authorities might hurt the Wa,
who are poor farmers with no alternative other than poppy cultivation. Suu
Kyi clarified that the type of information she was taking about would not be
that which could be used to attack harmless people. Rather, information on
drug traffickers' movements would assist Burmese officials in locating and
interdicting drug operations. 

She turned to Tin 00, calling him an expert on the Wa, and asked him for
expanded views on this issue. Tin 00 noted that poor Wa might be hurt, but
added that the exchange of information on areas of poppy cultivation would be
good, though the government may not take action against poppy cultivation in
ethnic areas even when provided precise information on their location. Aung 
San Suu Kyi did not seem unduly worried when Berkowitz raised, the
possibility that drug control efforts in the Wa area might alienate Wa
farmers who depend on drug production for their sustenance. 

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, unless misinformation--and perhaps it is--is being
conveyed from our Embassy in Burma , I think it is pretty clear what Aung San
Suu Kyi's position is on this issue. 

Also, let me point out, as I did in my opening statement, I do not support
any money going through the Burmese Government known as SLORC. This money
would not go through the Burmese Government known as SLORC. It specifically
would be provided to the United Nations to work with ethnic minorities on
crop substitution and other programs intended to begin making 
some, although admittedly small, progress in reducing poppy cultivation. None
of that assistance would be funneled through the Government. 

So I am sorry the Senator from Vermont either is misinformed or did not pay
attention to what I had to say; perhaps both.  But the fact is that this
money would not--I repeat, not--go through the 
settlement. If it would go through the Burmese Government, then I am
convinced Aung San San Suu Kyi would not approve of it. After all, she is the
one spent 4 years under house arrest and was a martyr who watched her
countrymen be slaughtered by the same group of people. Everybody has their
own opinion. 

But let us not distort the facts here. The facts are that we have credible
evidence from a cable sent to the United States State Department which
clearly indicates her support of certain types of drug control programs. That
is reality, and that is a fact. 

The other fact that I think we ought to emphasize here is that the money
would not go through the Burmese Government. And nobody--I mean nobody that I
know of--would support funding through that government. 

I would also suggest that perhaps the Senator from Vermont--Vermont is a
little bit different from what it is in Arizona. Perhaps in Vermont he does
not have kids overdosing on drugs in the streets of the capital of his State.
Mr. President, I do. The Senator from Vermont said it will not do much good.
Maybe it will not do much good. But I know that people are dying in my home
State from 
overdoses of heroin, from lethal doses of heroin that come directly from
Burma , because it is a proven fact that 60 percent of the heroin that comes
into the United States comes from Burma . 

So, in all due respect to the Senator from Vermont and the people in his
State, it is a compelling, urgent, and terrible problem that we have to take
every possible step to cure. One of them would be to reduce the cultivation
of this drug where it originates which does not require the participation of
the Burmese  Government. 


Mr. President, it is a $2 million program we are talking about here. I am a
bit curious why we should have to take up so much time of the Senate in a
very large multibillion-dollar piece of legislation. But I would be willing
to vote on the motion of the Senator from Kentucky to table whenever he feels
that we should. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, by way of very brief response to my friend from
Arizona, the cable to which he referred was prepared a few days after Suu
Kyi's release back in July. She subsequently learned that we provided
information to SLORC on an alleged drug caravan which turned out to be used
to attack ethnic groups on the border. Her views 2 days after being totally
isolated for 6 years has since been fully informed by facts, which are that
the money in all likelihood will end up with SLORC. She has since repeatedly
opposed this cooperation, and in interviews, both with the press and with
Congressmen who have been there, believe that it may threaten Burmese
citizens. 

Again, let me say reasonable people can differ about this. I totally respect
my friend from Arizona and his interest in involvement in this issue.
Fundamentally, it seems to me, the question is whether we should be
cooperating with the SLORC, one of the worst regimes in the world, if not the
worst. 

I think we have probably debated this amendment fully. I am not aware of
anybody else who wishes to speak. 

Mr. President, I move to table the McCain amendment, and I ask for the yeas
and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Is there a sufficient second? 
There is a sufficient second. 
The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the
Senator from Kentucky to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from
Arizona. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

[Page: S16480]

Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] is
necessarily absent. 

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon [Mr.
Hatfield] would vote `yea.' 

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] is absent
because of illness in the family. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire
to vote? 

The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 47, as follows: 

Rollcall Vote No. 560 Leg.

[Rollcall Vote No. 560 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Akaka, Bennett, Biden, Boxer, Brown, Bryan, Bumpers, Burns, Byrd, Campbell,
Chafee, Cochran, Coverdell, D'Amato, Daschle, DeWine, Exon, Faircloth,
Feingold, Gorton, Gregg, Harkin, Heflin, Hollings, Inhofe, Inouye, Jeffords,
Kassebaum, Kennedy, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lott, McConnell,
Mikulski, Moseley-Braun, Moynihan, Murkowski, Murray, Pell, Pryor, Reid,
Robb, Rockefeller, Santorum, Sarbanes, Shelby, Stevens, Wellstone

NAYS--47

Abraham, Ashcroft, Baucus, Bingaman, Bond, Breaux, Coats, Cohen, Conrad,
Craig, Dodd, Dole, Domenici, Dorgan, Feinstein, Ford, Frist, Glenn, Graham,
Gramm, Grams, Grassley, Hatch, Helms, Hutchison, Johnston, Kempthorne,
Kerrey, Kerry, Kyl, Lieberman, Lugar, Mack, McCain, Nickles, Nunn, Pressler,
Roth, Simon, Simpson, Smith, Snowe, Specter, Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond,
Warner

NOT VOTING--2

Bradley, Hatfield 

So, the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3042) was agreed to. 

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