Massachusetts House Debate on July 19, 1995
Massachusetts Senate Debate on March 20, 1996
Massachusetts Senate Debate on April 10, 1996
(HOUSE DEBATE ON H2833: July 19, 1995) HOUSE SPEAKER: The first matter passed over is on page 21, calendar item number 759. Third reading of the bill. THE CLERK: An Act Regulating State Contracts with Companies Doing Business With or in Burma/Myanmar. HOUSE SPEAKER: Question comes on passing the bill to be engrossed pending which Representative Rushing offer an amendment which the clerk will read. THE CLERK: Mr. Rushing of Boston moves that the bill be amended in section one as printed by inserting after the word "having" in line 13 the words "a principal place of business place of incorporation or corporate headquarters in Burma Myanmar or having" and in section two as printed by striking out the paragraphs contained in lines 1 to 25 inclusive. HOUSE SPEAKER: The question comes in the amendment. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. Recurring question comes on the bill to be engrossed Mr. Teague of Yarmouth offers an amendment which the clerk will read. THE CLERK: Mr. Teague moves the bill be amended in section one, lines 12, 15, 18, 25, 26, 28, 34, 35, 39 and 42, in section two, lines 8, 13, 59, 78, 79, 84 and 94, and in section four, line I0 by inserting after the word "Myanmar" in each instance insert the words "and/or China." HOUSE SPEAKER: The question comes on the amendment Mr. Teague of Yarmouth. Members kindly take a seat. HOUSE SPEAKER: The question comes on the amendment Mr. Teague of Yarmouth. MR TEAGUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope the amendment adopted. Mr. Speaker, from time to time over the years Massachusetts General Court, this is no laughing matter, has decided to engage in their own little version of foreign policy by restricting investments, primarily from our state pension funds and prohibiting pensions in policies we find offensive. There are many of those. The gentleman from Boston has filed a bill to impose such restrictions with respect to Burma, a nation ruled by a tyrant where there is much turmoil and restriction on human rights of various sorts. However, it is not alone in those offenses against humanity and against its citizens and sojourners. I would suggest that there are nations that have track records which are yet more reprehensible, more rigid, less understanding, more demanding and more patently offensive to our understanding of human rights and dignity, which is why I offer this amendment to include China, mainland China Mr. Speaker, as we talk, there is an American citizen, a naturalized American who was born in mainland China named Harry Wu, who has in fact been active on the Asian continent, and in asking the Chinese government to provide what we would consider minimal human rights and constitutional guarantees to its people. Mr. Speaker, Harry Wu has been arrested by the Chinese government and is held incommunicado on a spurious charge that he is an illegal immigrant based on the claim that the name on his passport is not the same as his given English name, Peter Harry Wu. And Mr. Speaker, the sole reason for that is because he has outspoken with regards to the persistent intentional policy of human rights violations that is the standard operation of the government of mainland China. Mr. Speaker, if we are to begin engage in foreign policy restrictions and prohibitions, if we are to trek down that route, I think we ought to start with the most egregious and certainly the regime currently ruling the nation of Burma is offensive. In the past we had restrictions on investments in Northern Ireland, in South Africa because of the offensive political activity restrictions on individual liberty in those nations. None of us tolerate those very well, but if we are going to get into that business then I say let's start at the top. And Mr. Speaker, I don't think anybody is going to stand here and defend the nation of China. And if we are to do a comparative analysis, and obviously we are because among the nations of the world we are selecting Burma as the one nation that we should consider for restrictions that our investments, if we are to do that type of comparative analysis, let's really do an analysis and look at some of the nations who have as their official policy for a period of 45 to nigh unto 50 years now, a rigid, in some cases cruel abuse of human rights in the most essential aspects, restriction on individual mobility, restriction on freedom of religion, restriction on freedom of the press. All manner of impositions on individual liberty. Mr. Speaker, the reason Harry Wu is locked up is because he's there talking about human rights. He's an American. If they to that to an American, think of what they do to their own people and what they 've done for the last 50 years. If this bill, which restricts investments here in Massachusetts so as to prohibit offensive nations from benefiting from the public funds of the Commonwealth, has merit, then I say we should to first things first. Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, I would say that China has amply demonstrated their scorn for what we consider typical standards of human dignity and civility and the case of Harry Wu demonstrates that. Mr. Speaker I hope the amendment is adopted. HOUSE SPEAKER: Mr. Rushing of Boston. MR RUSHING: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to do make is very clear what this legislation does. What this legislation does is that it establishes a program that is called selective purchase in regard to the country of Burma. It does that for a simple reason. We, in this legislature, have the proud reputation of being one of the leaders in this country and in this world in being of joining in the movement to restore democracy in South Africa, and we learned in that process two things. One is that if you're going to engage in foreign policy, you have to be very specific. You have to be very specific. And you have to be able, you have to be able to identify a goal that you will know when it is realized. We identified a goal around South Africa. That goal was to end apartheid and we would know when is realized when there were elections in that country that every person could participate in. When that happened, and for our piece of that we had venous forms of state sanctions in Massachusetts for 12 years, 12 years. And when that identifiable event occurred, we ended all of our sanctions that we had created here. Burma is a country that was in the process of restoring democracy. It had at first a left wing, a socialist totalitarian regime. There was a movement to restore democracy. That movement became more and more successful, and in 1989 the leader of that movement was placed under house arrest. In 1990 that leader party won a democratic election overwhelmingly, and the people elected in that election were never allowed to sit, and instead Burma was overtaken by a right wing totalitarian regime. That right wing totalitarian regime is a regime that is in power now. It is a regime that has killed literally thousands of its country's people, and it is that regime that the democratic movement in Burma is attempting to overthrow and to again have free elections in that country. That is what the identifiable goal is, free democratic elections in Burma. The other thing we understood and learned from in South Africa Was that there had to be a clear movement outside of that country, exiles outside of that country who were working for these goals so that there was always people in countries where they could communicate and we would be able to be in some communication with the forces that wanted to restore democracy. We all here in this state, Democratic and Republican, can now go around the world bragging, literally bragging about what a wonderful thing we did when we joined in that international movement to end apartheid in the United States, in South Africa, and we should. We should be proud of that. The governor of Massachusetts is going to South Africa next month. He is going to South Africa next month. All of the major leaders of South Africa are going to meet with the governor of Massachusetts when he is in South Africa for four days, not because he is the descendent of Cromwell's chaplain. They are going to meet with the governor because he is the governor of Massachusetts, the state that was one of the first in this country to beam sanctions against South Africa. There were two major forms of sanctions that we took. We ended all of our investments in our pension funds in companies that did business in South Africa. The other sanctioning that we did was what we are proposing in this bill in regard to Burma. We said that the state would not buy any goods and services from companies that do business in South Africa. HOUSE SPEAKER: Mr. Teague of Yarmouth For what purpose does the gentleman rise? The gentleman yields. Mr. Teague of Yarmouth. MR TEAGUE: I appreciate the gentleman yielding because I an interested in the history. Some of the members may not be familiar with it. What I am more interested in is, given the gentleman's objection to the regime in Burma and his interest in restoring democracy there, does he have the same interest in restoring democracy with regards to China where the regime is at least as offensive, if not more so, and is he thereby willing to adopt the same standards with respect to China as with respect to Burma, the successful efforts we have had in the past. HOUSE SPEAKER: Mr. Rushing of Boston. MR RUSHING: What the gentleman from Yarmouthport does not want to hear is the rationale for this legislation, because I'm going to answer his question, because his question is what the is and this happened by his predecessors in this house who were opposed to any action by this house around anti-apartheid. Every time we brought up a bill related to South Africa, the Republican leadership would have tried to amend it by adding every other dastardly nation in the world. And what does that do? HOUSE SPEAKER: Mr. Teague of Yarmouth. What purpose does the gentleman rise? Gentlemen yields. MR. TEAGUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the gentleman's kindness in yielding. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the reason that some of these nations flourish under the conditions they do is because the legislation has not taken the same initiative having claimed to do so in these other cases of the dastardly nations that you so properly identify. Then perhaps we should grasp this opportunity to incorporate them into this legislation subjective to the same rigid standards as you yourself identify have been successful and thereby turn them around. I am wondering if the gentleman will join me in that effort because failing that then perhaps change will come more slowly if not at all. If the gentleman is willing to join towards that end. HOUSE SPEAKER: Mr. Rushing of Boston. MR. RUSHING: The minority leader should know this, that I will absolutely join him in that, but what I am not going to do that, what I am not going to do is to trivialize the movement for restoring democracy in Burma by adopting these amendments, and I will tell you why. I will tell you why. And this is why. Because you have never filed a bill to do that. You have never filed a bill to say that this legislature should engage in the movement to restore democracy in China. You have never talked about a bill to reject, to restore democracy in North Korea. You have never filed a bill. You know why? I know that because there's never been a hearing on any of those bills. HOUSE SPEAKER: What purpose does the gentleman rise? Gentleman yields. Mr. Teague of Yarmouth. Mr. TEAGUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman is quite correct, I haven't filed a bill to that measure, nor did l file a bond bill to construct prisons which we just debated this afternoon. Nonetheless, amendments were offered. There is no corner on the market for good ideas, but it appears that the gentleman's point that there are regimes that impose extraordinary standards on their citizens, and the gentleman says that he is opposed to that type of behavior by nations. ought we not look at other nations and attempt to be uninformed in our application. Quite frankly, if we did that then perhaps we might have the desired effect. You well illustrated the case of South Africa in which we participated. You suggest trivializing. It is not trivial when a nation has American citizens incarcerated specifically because they are out pursuing human rights initiatives in that nation. I don't think that is trivial. I think that is substantial with the same substance as the measure in front of us which is why I offer the amendment. HOUSE SPEAKER: Mr. Rushing Boston. Gentleman yields. MR. RUSHING: You missed my point. My point is, if you take this stuff serious, if you work on this stuff, one of the things you do is you draft legislation that is useful for the movement of people who are attempting to do the particular ask they are involved in. The legislation that we did for South Africa was designed so that it would be useful for the forces for the prodemocracy and anti-Apartheid forces in South Africa. It was what they wanted. It was what they wanted. Now you tell me what the prodemocracy forces in North Korea want. You tell me that. You answer the question for me. And you dont know the answer to that because you haven't talked to them about it. HOUSE SPEAKER: The house will be in a brief recess. HOUSE SPEAKER: Recurring questions comes on ordering the bill to a third reading. All those in favor say aye. All opposed so. The ayes have it. The bill is ordered to a third reading. (SENATE DEBATE ON H2833: March 20, 1996.) SENATE PRESIDENT: The present item passed over is item 665 on the first page. The senator from Hampden and Hampshire, Mr. Lees. MR. LEES: I move that this matter be postponed for three weeks. SENATE PRESIDENT: The senate will come to order. The senator from Hampden and Hampshire, Mr. Lees. MR. LEES: Mr. President, I would withdraw that motion. And W. President, I am very curious why members of this legislature, if it's so good, why isn't the Congress of the United States doing it? Why isn't the president of the United States saying Burma ought to be put into this? But, no, we, Mr. President, and the Massachusetts legislature tried to set up some foreign policy business guidelines, so because of that I move the matter be laid upon the table. SENATE PRESIDENT: The senator from Hampden and Hampshire has asked unanimous consent to withdraw his motion that the matter be postponed until April 10th. Is there an objection to his request to withdraw his motion? The chair hears none. The senator from Norfolk and Suffolk, Ms. Walsh. MS. WALSH: The minority leader may be pleased to learn the Federal Government gets many of its best ideas from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, including its constitution, so we look forward to the future debate on how we can advance civil and human rights in the country of Burma by our business dealings with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Thank you, Mr. President. SENATE PRESIDENT: The senator from Hampden and Hampshire, Mr. Lees. MR. LEES: If it's such a great idea then maybe the senator who just took her seat could ask the president of United States to put it in his foreign policy guidelines and business guidelines, but I don't know why we continue to try to hurt Massachusetts business while the federal government, if it's such a great do, doesn't do it. Again, Mr. President, I think this matter should be laid upon the table. SENATE PRESIDENT: The matter before the body is on the motion of the senator from Hampden and Hampshire to lay the matter on the table. All those in favor. Under the rules placed in the orders of the day for the next session. (SENATE DEBATE ON H2833: April 10, 1996) SENATE PRESIDENT: The next item passed over is item 6635. The main question being on bill to a third reading. Coming first on the motion previously moved from the senator from Hampden and Hampshire to lay the matter on the table. Ten minute debate, 3 minutes per senator. The senator from Middlesex, Ms. Hicks. MS. HICKS: I hope this matter is laid upon the table. There has been extensive discussion on this, and I must admit, I continue to come back to the same conclusions that this is ill-recommended legislation. This particular body has no particular responsibility to make a statement on this, what is certainly an international matter. If this is so important to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, why hasn't our congressional delegation acted and come forth with something in the appropriate forum, which would be the U.S. Congress, to do something about these, no doubt, atrocities and human right abuses that have taken place in Burma. We have no committees within this legislature that would review such as our essentially prohibiting our companies in Massachusetts with doing business there. We do not know how this would directly affect jobs in Massachusetts. We do not know how this would affect our export picture, which I believe the sponsors of this legislation claimed to be concerned about. Clearly, this is not a matter that's appropriate for us to take up, not now or any other time. I also have to raise the question of it may be very well to single out South Africa, but Burma is no South Africa. As a matter of fact, I do not understand the argument as to why there aren't any number of other countries around the world where we have the same types of offenses taking place, same types of human rights abuses occurring. I do sot understand the rationale of why we have to take this up, why we need to get into this matter at all. Mr. President, I would hope that the sponsors of this legislation would take another look at this, and for us to concentrate and focus our efforts on creating jobs here at home and not try to dabble in foreign affairs. I hope this matter is laid upon the table where it should stay. SENATE PRESIDENT: The senator from Norfolk and Suffolk, Ms. Walsh. MS. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. President. I can certainly understand the confusion and even the difficulty in appreciating why this matter would be before this body. And when I was first approached to sponsor this legislation, I had some of the same questions. My answer is simply this. It is a small world. As a matter of fact, I have to speak with direct discussion of the current administration that has been so mindful and aggressive in seeking a global economy. That has had many international trips in good faith to encourage Massachusetts business arrangements, sot just within the confines of the United States of America, but all over the entire globe. The fact is that we have in countries like Burma horrific serious human right violations, and that we have an opportunity through business to promote and exacerbate the most horrible dehumanization of people we can ever imagine. And we also have the capacity to be mindful that tax dollars in Massachusetts can either stop the violation of human rights or they can promote the protection of human rights. This legislature has had a very, very distinctive and proud history of recognizing the connection of the dots, of realizing that what Massachusetts does affects the country, affects the world. Our governor is particularly mindful of that in trying to enhance international business activities for Massachusetts. In South Africa in the late 1980's this legislature passed similar sanctions. We educated one another, and we learned how American business who have contracts with the Massachusetts government are promoting atrocious human rights violations in other countries. And we became aware that we are a party and unwitting conspirator to those kinds of exploits and we pass sanctions. And those sanctions had an effect in other cities, and other states also passed sanctions. Two years ago this legislature retreated and repealed those sanctions because the government in South Africa smelled the coffee and changed their policy and they found religion through economic inconvenience and hardship. The important thing about this proposal is that it recognizes human rights also. There are actually in this proposal certain exceptions. We don't prohibit medical relief. We ton's prohibit news releases and other kinds of newspaper and public information. We don't prohibit any real property transactions that protect public health and public safety. It's very reason, very rational. Its an extension of our recognition of a global economy. We also did this in Northern Ireland. It took four years, but we recognized that there are people in Northern Ireland, because of the religious affiliation who are seated beside another religious affiliation and make half the wage. Can't get a health plan. Provide and promote the same kinds of service for that community and are treated less than human. Those are the so-called McBride principles. We recognize this government of Massachusetts subsidizes bad practices through their contracts. And we have passed a law, it's a varied version of the McBride principles, to put on notice that we are not going to promote those bad practices. And what this is, is a message, a clear message that the government of Massachusetts will not do business with businesses that exploit and do business with military government in Burma. This is a rational, a well grounded piece of legislation. It is authored by people who have worked formally and officially with the United Nations that have sought our help. We have much information we can offer you. This is only a debate on laying it on the table. Furthermore, what is our role here? It is the people at the local grass roots effort that fight the wars and raise the armies. It is the states and the colonies that built this national government. It is the people closest to the pain that sometimes first rise to the solution. I offer, as one member of this body, that we recognize the responsibility and opportunity we have to send a very appropriate and simple message to be helpful for Civil Rights across the globe with our dollars. The dollars of our government to help promote and stand for civil end human rights. I ask for that reason that this bill that has already passed the house be permitted to be debated and discussed here today. Thank you, Mr. President. SENATE PRESIDENT: The senator from Plymouth and Norfolk, Mr. Hedlund. MR HEDLUND: I hope the motion to lay on the table is not adopted, and I want to respond to a couple of points that my good friend from Wayland made. First, she spoke of the fact that we have, as a legislative body, no role in this issue. I don't agree with that. I think the point made by my colleague from West Roxbury about our moral obligation a valid point, and argument can be made that much of what we do in this body we have no role injecting ourselves into. I think last week we saw legislation filed that would regulate the construction of barges which may be an interstate commerce issue that we as a state may not have a role in any say. So I think much of what we deal with -- we could have talked about tobacco labeling contents. We may not have responsibility or role to be involved in that, but we do interject ourselves in these kinds of issues. Ant I think this is one that is a valid issue. My colleague compared the situation in South Africa to that of Burma. The situation in Burma is infinitely worse than what has gone on in recent decades in South Africa. There is no comparison. And just a little background. There are two minorities in Burma, the Shan and the Corem, that fought with the allies in World War II, were promised support after World War II for an independent state and were betrayed by western nations. Those people have been subjected to genocides by the ruling military regime in Burma. In fact, they have been using United States-supplied helicopters that were supposed to be used for drug eradication programs which have been turned on their own people in attempting to completely wipe out those minorities in eastern Burma. So I think it's a small, small action that this body can take but one that is warranted. As say colleague from West Roxbury said, we got a long proud tradition. Whether it's the Fugitive Slave Acts. The legislation we dealt with last year with China, there is precedent here. I hope the motion to lay on the table is not adopted and do debate this bill and seek passage of this bill. Thank you, Mr. President. SENATE PRESIDENT: On the motion to lay on the table, all those in favor say aye, opposed no. The no's have it. The motion to lay on the table does not prevail. The question now comes on ordering the bill to a third reading. All those in favor say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it. The bill is ordered to a third reading. Home | About Us | Resources | Press Releases | Federal Activity & Legislation
State & Local Activity | NFTC Lawsuit | Contact Us | Site Index