I would conclude that to prohibit U.S. contributions involved in any way dealing with, I think--we have exceptions for drug interdiction. Can we spend money in Burma for drug interdiction, drug identification, undercover or otherwise? I think we should have an opportunity. Existing law says no U.S. cooperation with SLORC on the drug issue, frankly because we don't trust them. So the Cohen amendment would actually weaken existing law in terms of the U.S. relationship with SLORC. Let me point out to my colleagues what action has been taken this month in the European Parliament. First, the European Parliament has condemned torture, arrests, detentions, and human rights abuses perpetrated by SLORC. Obviously, that is an easy thing to do. It supports the suspension of concessional lending to SLORC, a little tougher step.
Don Nickles: “I would conclude that to prohibit U.S. contributions involved in any way dealing with, I think--we have exceptions for…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing U.S. contributions and cooperation with SLORC during a debate on foreign policy.
Share
More from Don Nickles
I am happy to debate my colleague, or any colleague, on the budget. We spent several days debating the budget. I am more than happy to debate it. I will tell my colleague that we basically have assumed a freeze in nondefense, non-homeland…
Congress passed a bad law called the Windfall Profits Tax. That motivated me to run for Senate more than anything else.
the pending Foreign Operations appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2005, S. 2674, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, provides $19.386 billion in discretionary budget authority and $26.728 billion discretionary outlays…
You would give such a tax advantage to Total, BP, Lukoil, other international oil companies.





