[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]







 NO EXIT STRATEGY: BURMA'S ENDLESS CRISIS AND AMERICA'S LIMITED OPTIONS

=======================================================================

                             JOINT HEARING

                                 OF THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

                                AND THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           November 19, 2025

                               __________

                           Serial No. 119-34

                               __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs









    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]










Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov, http://docs.house.gov, 
                       or http://www.govinfo.gov 
                       
                                   _______
                                   
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
                 
64-033 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2026 
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                    BRIAN J. MAST, Florida, Chairman
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York, 
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey         Ranking Member
JOE WILSON, South Carolina           BRAD SHERMAN, California
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
DARRELL ISSA, California             AMI BERA, California
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
RANDY FINE, Florida                  DINA TITUS, Nevada
ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  TED LIEU, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 SARA JACOBS, California
YOUNG KIM, California                SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK, 
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida            Florida
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan              GREG STANTON, Arizona
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    American Samoa                   JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              JIM COSTA, California
THOMAS H. KEAN, JR, New Jersey       GABE AMO, Rhode Island
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
CORY MILLS, Florida                  PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
RICHARD McCORMICK, Georgia           GEORGE LATIMER, New York
KEITH SELF, Texas                    JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI Jr, Maryland
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana               JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam                SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware
ANNA PAULINA LUNA, Florida           BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
JEFFERSON SHREVE, Indiana            MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania

              James Langenderfer, Majority Staff Director
                 Sajit Gandhi, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

                    YOUNG KIM, California, Chairwoman

MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             AMI BERA , California, Ranking 
 ANDY BARR, Kentucky                     Member
 AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       BRAD SHERMAN , California
    American Samoa                    JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
 RYAN ZINKE, Montana                  JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
 JAMES MOYLAN, Guam                   GABE AMO, Rhode Island
 SHERI BIGGS , South Carolina         JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI, Maryland
 RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania

                 Tom Hill, Subcommittee Staff Director
                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA

                   BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan, Chairman

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California, 
 TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee                 Ranking Member
 THOMAS KEAN, JR, New Jersey          AMI BERA, California
 KEITH SELF, Texas                    KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
 JAMES MOYLAN , Guam                  PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
 JEFFERSON SHREVE, Indiana            GEORGE LATIMER , New York
 MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington      JULIE JOHNSON, Texas

               Caroline Vik, Subcommittee Staff Director
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                            REPRESENTATIVES

                                                                   Page
Opening Statement of Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific 
  Chairman Young Kim.............................................     1
Opening Statement of Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific 
  Ranking Member Ami Bera........................................     2
Opening Statement of Subcommittee on South and Central Asia 
  Chairman Bill Huizenga.........................................     3
Opening Statement of Subcommittee on South and Central Asia 
  Ranking Member Sydney Kamlager-Dove............................     5

                               WITNESSES

Statement of Hon. Kelley Currie, Nonresident Senior Fellow, 
  Atlantic Council's Indo-Pacific Security Initiative............     7
  Prepared Statement.............................................     9
Statement of Lucky Karim, Executive Director, Refugee Women for 
  Peace and Justice..............................................    13
  Prepared Statement.............................................    15
Statement of Steve Ross, Senior Fellow, Stimson Center...........    19
  Prepared Statement.............................................    21

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................    56
Hearing Minutes..................................................    58
Hearing Attendance...............................................    59

                        Material for the Record

Material submitted by Rep. Huizenga..............................    60
Material submitted by Rep. Kamlager-Dove.........................    64

                        Questions for the Record

Questions submitted to Kelley Currie by Rep. Self................    78
Questions submitted to Steve Ross by Rep. Self...................    80
Questions submitted to Lucky Karim by Rep. Self..................    82

 
 NO EXIT STRATEGY: BURMA'S ENDLESS CRISIS AND AMERICA'S LIMITED OPTIONS

                              ----------                              


                      Wednesday, November 19, 2025

                  House of Representatives,
         Subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific and 
             Subcommittee on South and Central Asia
                              Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in 
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Young Kim (chair 
of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Mrs. Kim of California. The Subcommittee on East Asia and 
the Pacific and the Subcommittee on South and Central Asia will 
come to order.
    This joint hearing will assess the current situation in 
Burma, including the upcoming sham elections, the dire 
humanitarian situation facing the Rohingya community, and ways 
to address the proliferation of scam centers and fentanyl 
hurting the lives of everyday Americans. I now recognize myself 
for an opening statement.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG KIM

    Welcome to today's joint East Asia and the Pacific and 
South and Central Asia Subcommittee hearing on the ongoing 
military and humanitarian crisis in Burma, titled No Exit 
Strategy: Burma's Endless Crisis and America's Limited Options.
    This hearing aims to illuminate a prominent source of 
regional instability and a significant foreign policy 
opportunity for the United States. Burma is a failed State 
rapidly becoming the world's center of organized crime, with 
more than half of its population living in poverty, nearly 3.6 
million people internally displaced, and millions more having 
fled to neighboring countries.
    Although resistance forces have achieved notable successes 
over the past year and a half, the junta remains resilient, 
still controlling about 20 percent of the country's land while 
opposition forces control roughly twice that amount.
    Since Burma's military coup in 2021, the junta has only 
worked to further legitimize itself, despite some claims that 
it is in decline. The Tatmadaw, Burma's military junta, is 
slated to hold sham elections in December 2025, where the 
results are predetermined, in a bid to disguise authoritarian 
control as democratic process.
    These elections are designed to create an illusion of 
legitimacy while allowing the junta to continue serving as a 
proxy for China and Russia. Both powers have aided the 
Tatmadaw's numerous war crimes by propping up the regime with 
weapons and surveillance technology.
    The United States has a moral obligation to call out and 
act against both human rights abuses and autocratic 
transgression. While cuts to foreign assistance have reduced 
our ability to assist in disasters and in the conflict writ 
large, the conflict presents an opportunity for the United 
States to strengthen its regional interests in regard to supply 
chain security, economic partnerships, and critical mineral 
initiatives.
    This hearing also addresses the direct and immediate 
consequences of Burma's conflict on the American people. Make 
no mistake: America's interests in this conflict are not 
humanitarian alone. Junta-affiliated scamming networks 
operating within Burma have targeted Americans, stealing 
billions of dollars a year from American taxpayers. These funds 
not only benefit transnational criminal networks but continue 
to line the pockets of the military junta. Congress must act 
immediately to protect our citizens' hard-earned savings.
    Burma's humanitarian catastrophe, its strategic importance 
in Southeast Asia, and the ongoing war's harmful effects on 
everyday Americans all demand a thorough reevaluation of the 
United States policy. Indeed, when we consider both the 
domestic and foreign policy implications of the crisis in 
Burma, greater American attention to the conflict and its 
outcome truly puts America first.
    To address these challenges, the committee has gathered an 
excellent panel of witnesses who will help us further unpack 
the many dimensions of Burma's conflict. So I look forward to 
engaging with them on this critical issue. Thank you.
    I now recognize Ranking Member Ami Bera to make his 5 
minutes' opening remarks.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER AMI BERA

    Mr. Bera. Thank you, Chairwoman Kim and Chairman Huizenga 
and Ranking Member Kamlager-Dove, for hosting a hearing on this 
important topic.
    I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today. We are 
grateful for your expertise, and I look forward to your 
testimony.
    I won't reiterate everything that the chairwoman said, but 
I agree with everything that you did say in terms of the 
complexity of this conflict, and the ongoing is--you know, 
there is no easy solution here.
    You pointed out the importance of calling out the sham 
elections that are coming up. These are not legitimate, free, 
and fair elections. These are elections where the junta is 
trying to legitimize themself. We have to make sure we call out 
the elections for what they are.
    Also, you talked about the scam centers that are preying 
upon U.S. citizens but also are funding the military junta. 
That is a real challenge, as well, and it is something that not 
just the United States--but it is impacting Southeast Asia and 
other ASEAN nations. This is an area where we should be working 
closely together to try to disrupt these organized crime 
networks and scam centers.
    The other thing that I would like to touch on also is what 
we see in terms of the PRC supporting some of the junta, 
providing military aid and others. This is an area where we 
should use the full power of Congress, Democrats and 
Republicans, to continue to put pressure on the Chinese and 
others, including bringing in the Indians who also are seeing 
the cross-border refugee crisis to work together to try to find 
an end.
    And last, from the beginning of the conflict in 2021, we 
have worked closely with the ASEAN nations, the Southeast Asia 
nations. You know, I recently met with the Indonesian 
ambassador, welcoming the new Ambassador here. We did talk 
about next steps and how we can support ASEAN to find a 
resolution to this. And it is not just a resolution. We have 
seen the resilience of the Burmese people in terms of fighting 
for their liberty and freedom and a path forward. It has been 
remarkable that they have been able to sustain this for this 
long.
    This is an opportunity to try to facilitate real change 
where we can empower the people of Burma to find their path 
forward. It will not be easy. It will take partnership with the 
other Southeast Asian nations. It will take ASEAN leadership 
and then the other partner neighboring nations that have a real 
stake here, Bangladesh, India, and others.
    So, again, thank you for this timely hearing. I think it is 
important. This is an incredibly complicated and complex 
challenge. But this is also an opportunity. If we work together 
with like-valued allies, with the ASEAN nations, hopefully we 
can effect a more positive outcome down the road and in the 
future.
    So thank you, Chairwoman Kim. And I yield back.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you.
    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from South and 
Central Asia Subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, 
Representative Huizenga, for your opening statement.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BILL HUIZENGA

    Mr. Huizenga. Well, thanks, Chair Kim. And I am thrilled to 
be able to do this hearing with you and to pull in the folks 
from South Central Asia Committee, as well as your vital 
committee.
    And interestingly enough, yesterday I met with the new 
Ambassador from Bangladesh. And my goal with that meeting was 
to, first and foremost, say thank you for what Bangladesh is 
doing in Cox's Bazar. And the number is now, he informs me, 1.3 
million Rohingya that are there. They have about 35,000 births 
per year and still approximately 100,000 refugees coming across 
per year.
    And so there is certainly a strain on Bangladesh and, as my 
friend Ami Bera had mentioned, India as well, and others in 
that region, who are helping.
    And, Madam Chair, I have mentioned many times before in 
this committee, our Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as the 
Financial Services Committee where I am vice chair, that the 
Burma issues are near and dear to my heart as well as the heart 
of my constituency, especially those constituents at the Battle 
Creek Burma Center in Southwest Michigan.
    That is what prompted me to really take a much more focused 
look at what is going on. And year after year, I have heard 
their stories and a desire for an end to the violence 
perpetuated by the junta, and they want to promote an open and 
inclusive democratic system and return to a safe and stable and 
secure Burma. And I know that is the goal of a few of our 
guests that are here in the audience with us today.
    And without objection, Madam Chair, I would like to submit 
for the record a letter addressed to this committee from more 
than 90 civil society organizations regarding the situation in 
Burma.
    [The information referred to can be found in the appendix:]
    Mr. Huizenga. They write in their letter quote, ``Burma's 
military has always been and remains today the single greatest 
source of instability and economic destruction in the 
country,'' close quote.
    Sadly, I think those words ring very true. And 
unfortunately, since February 2021, when a military coup 
replaced the democratically elected government in Burma, these 
desires for a new Burma are a long way from being fully 
realized. Protests and general strikes from pro-democracy 
advocates led the military regime's indiscriminate crackdown, 
including the killing of protesters and previously elected 
leaders and air strikes against schools, IDP camps, and 
civilian infrastructure, all of which manifests into human 
rights violations perpetuated by the oppressive and 
illegitimate military regime.
    The civil war between the military junta and the ethnic 
resistance organizations rages on, wreaking havoc across the 
country. And thanks to unfettered arms supply line from Russia 
and China, the military regime controls the airspace. And just 
last week, the military junta took delivery of Russian 
helicopters and Chinese military aircraft, which will 
ultimately be used to fight resistance forces and civilians in 
the mountainous regions of the country.
    The junta's grasp on its territory has become so desperate, 
the junta activated mandatory conscription last year, forcibly 
recruiting Rohingya Muslims to fight on the regime's behalf or 
to use them as human shields, even as the regime has long 
persecuted the Rohingya themselves.
    In the junta's latest ploy to build legitimacy around their 
illegitimate regime, a first-of-its-kind election has been 
called for December 28 of this year, 2025. As co-chair of the 
congressional Burma Caucus, I have significant concerns about 
the lack of electoral rules and structures in this deeply 
flawed process.
    Additionally, the enactment of a recent July 2025 election 
protection law targets anyone who speaks out or protests 
against the election and threatens years of imprisonment or 
even death for those that are convicted. This move only further 
chills the democratic process in Burma. To say that these 
elections are shaping up to be free or fair is delusional.
    Moving forward, the United States' strong voice and 
stalwart leadership could have a lasting impact on the region. 
I have frankly been encouraged by the Trump administration's 
interest in the region, including multiple rounds of sanctions 
designated from Treasury targeting Burmese armed groups with 
links to scam compounds and a Burmese arms procurement network 
linked to North Korea.
    Additionally, since October, this administration has 
pledged over 130 million for the Rohingya refugee crisis and 
pushed 11 countries to increase their aid response to the 
Rohingya by more than 10 percent. In terms of assistance, the 
United States has provided more than a third of all aid to the 
Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis Joint Response Plan in 2025, more 
than double that of any nation.
    I see my time is running out, but I just want to add again 
I am encouraged to see the July 2025 Quad Summit Joint 
Statement on bringing much-needed international attention to 
the Burma crisis. More can and should be done by this 
administration and our global partners to stop the bleeding in 
Burma. So I look forward to our conversation today.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you.
    I now recognize the ranking member of South and Central 
Asia Subcommittee, my dear friend from California, 
Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE

    Mrs. Kamlager-Dove. Well, thank you, Madam and Mr. Chair, 
for bringing us together for this joint bipartisan hearing so 
we can speak with one voice on this important topic.
    The conflict in Burma reverberates far beyond its borders, 
and I want to focus especially on the instability it creates in 
Southeast Asia. The largest refugee encampment in the world is 
in Bangladesh, home to a forgotten crisis, the 1.5 million 
Rohingya refugees who fled ethnic cleansing at the hands of the 
Burmese military junta and what the United States determined to 
be a genocide in 1922.
    For the Rohingya, Rakhine State in Burma is their 
motherland and their home. But for decades, they have been 
treated as outsiders in their own land, targeted by the 
military, maligned by other Burmese ethnic minorities, and 
stripped of their citizenship. The Rohingya are now the world's 
largest stateless population, a status passed down from one 
generation to the next.
    Years after renewed ethnic cleansing and the outbreak of 
civil war, the Rohingya in Burma are still the target of brutal 
genocidal violence. The Arakan Army, an ethnic armed 
organization that resumed fighting the military junta in late 
1923, has massacred the Rohingya and territory under its 
control. This has forced an additional 150,000 Rohingya to seek 
safety in Bangladesh in the past 18 months alone.
    In Cox's Bazar, however, the Rohingya confront another 
harrowing set of challenges. Bangladesh, which faces major 
strains on its State capacity, has demonstrated incredible 
generosity in hosting the Rohingya refugees, a responsibility 
that must be shouldered by the entire international community. 
And while we all share the same goal for the Rohingya to live 
safely as equal citizens in their home country, policies to 
ensure that the refugee camps remain a temporary solution have 
in many ways had the opposite effect.
    Instead, it has deprived the Rohingya of their agency to 
build a life for themselves and end their reliance on 
government and international support. The Rohingya do not have 
the right to work or the freedom of movement to leave the 
camps. They have limited access to any livelihood or 
educational opportunities, depriving them of the right to human 
development. They are not permitted to build permanent 
structures, resulting in vulnerability to flooding, landslides, 
and fires and constant costly rebuilding.
    Insecurity in the camps has exploded as armed groups battle 
for dominance and traffic young Rohingya into prostitution, 
slavery, or conscription in the Burmese military. Women and 
girls are disproportionately impacted, as always, with an 
uptick in gender-based violence and child marriages as 
conditions deteriorate.
    The Rohingya crisis requires sustained U.S. leadership to 
support the Bangladesh Government, ensure robust assistance and 
improvements to the humanitarian response, and define permanent 
solutions for many of the Rohingya. Alleviating the pressure on 
Bangladesh's limited State capacity is essential to promoting 
stability in the country as the interim government works to 
rebuilt from past authoritarian rule and manage its political 
transition ahead of elections next year.
    While I was glad to see the administration announce new 
funding pledges to support Rohingya refugees, the $168 million 
the administration provided in Fiscal Year 2025 is less than 
half of the 354.5 million the United States provided in 1924, 
even as humanitarian needs arise. Such a significant funding 
cut will directly impact the lives of Rohingya, whose food 
rations amount to about $12 a month.
    The U.S. must also work with the Bangladesh Government and 
our partners in the region to improve conditions for the 
Rohingya, both within the camps and to find sustainable 
solutions outside the camps. This, first and foremost, requires 
a cohesive regional strategy that goes beyond a singular focus 
on tariffing our partners or pursuing a Nobel Peace Prize.
    Resettling Rohingya refugees to safe third countries is an 
essential part of this effort. If the State Department is 
engaging other countries to accept U.S. deportation flights, 
they should also be working with partners to resettle stranded 
refugees into a long-term solution.
    With newly confirmed leadership in the South and Central 
Asia Bureau, I hope to see sustained diplomatic engagement and 
resource prioritization for the Rohingya refugee crisis. And I 
am ready to work with the administration on a bipartisan basis 
to push for sustained solutions for the Rohingya, especially as 
Bangladesh elects a new government early next year.
    I look forward to today's robust discussion in how we can 
work together to address the Rohingya crisis and the conflict 
in Burma that is driving it.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you.
    And I would like to note that other members of the 
committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted 
for the record.
    And we are pleased to have a distinguished panel of 
witnesses before us today on this very important topic.
    The honorable Kelley Currie, nonresident senior fellow at 
the Atlantic Council's Indo-Pacific Security Initiative, thanks 
for being with us.
    Steve Ross is a senior fellow from the Stimson Center.
    Thank you for being with us.
    Lucky Karim, the executive director of Refugee Women for 
Peace and Justice, appreciate you joining us today.
    This committee recognizes the importance of the issues 
before us, and we are grateful to have you here to speak with 
us today. Your full statements will be made part of the record, 
and I will ask each of you to keep your spoken remarks to 5 
minutes in order to allow time for member questions.
    I now recognize Ambassador Currie for your opening 
statement.

                   STATEMENT OF KELLEY CURRIE

    Ms. Currie. Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Chairman, and 
ranking members and other members of the committee, for hosting 
and convening this important hearing at a time when the world 
is largely ignoring what is happening in Burma.
    I have worked on Burma for three decades. This is both the 
most depressing and most hopeful I have been about Burma. And I 
think you can read my full statement to understand a little bit 
of why.
    I must first clarify that my remarks solely represent my 
personal views and not any of the many organizations with which 
I am affiliated. And I do refer you to my full statement for my 
entire remarks. I am going to focus on a few recommendations.
    I think that one of the things that is really key to 
understanding what is going on in Burma right now is that you 
have these trends that all of the committee leadership spoke 
about in terms of the scam centers. They did not mention rare 
earth mining, but that is another big issue for Burma.
    There are just a number of intersecting conflict economies 
that are fueling this war. And the main beneficiary of these 
conflict economies and the war itself is not even the Burmese 
junta at this point; it is the People's Republic of China.
    I think that it is important to understand that China wants 
to see Burma weak, divided, and dependent. That is their 
objective. That is what they are trying to accomplish through 
their proxies, whether it is the United Wa State Army or their 
occasional intervention to support and backstop the military 
regime, the continuous flow of weapons that they provide the 
military regime.
    They want to see the junta successfully pull off these 
elections and bring a level of stability that allows them to 
continue to do business and pull resources out of Burma without 
the cost that they are having to deal with right now, the 
annoying problems of the conflict that Beijing has to bear.
    At the same time, when it comes to the scam centers and the 
rare earth mining, Beijing is rapacious in the way that they 
deal with these things. The scam centers could not exist 
without the support that the regime in Beijing provides to 
them. These scam centers are largely the guts, the backbone, 
behind them. And this is a 35 billion-dollar-a-year global 
industry--I want to be clear about that--and growing quickly.
    They are using technology in a way that is astounding, AI. 
They were just rated and had hundreds of Starlink units 
powering their internet. They are at the center of a web of 
some of the worst human trafficking I have ever seen in 30 
years working on human rights, and most abusive human-
trafficking system.
    And they are deeply connected--and this is one thing I 
think we don't really understand very well or talk about. These 
scam centers started out as a way to launder money, including 
drug money from the Mexican cartels. They have become a line of 
business on their own, but at heart, they are really a massive 
money-laundering organization that benefits the very cartels 
that are killing Americans with fentanyl.
    And there is an increasing link between the cartels and the 
fentanyl production in the western hemisphere and the drug 
production and these transnational Chinese criminal 
organizations that are underlying this entire web of global 
illicit activities. And Burma is at the center of it.
    And it is a strange place to be at the center of a global 
network of criminality. But because of the disaggregated 
sovereignty in parts of Burma and the lawlessness, it has 
become the perfect breeding ground for these activities.
    So this is a national security threat to the United States, 
as the leadership mentioned. We do have tools we can use, 
whether it is with our ally Thailand or our adversary Beijing, 
to rachet down pressure on these activities. We need to stop 
removing sanctions on Burma's arms dealers. We need to make 
clear that we will not recognize their illicit and illegal 
election.
    But at the end of the day, much of the source of the 
problem for what we're dealing with in Burma derives from 
across the border in the People's Republic of China. And we 
need to understand that as we start to think about the 
solutions that this committee and the administration put 
forward.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Currie follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you very much. That is a 
very, very powerful statement, and we are taking a lot of 
notes. And I really look forward to engaging you in questions 
afterwards. Thank you.
    I now recognize Ms. Karim for your opening statement.

                    STATEMENT OF LUCKY KARIM

    Mrs. Karim. Thank you, Madam and Mr. Chairman.
    My name is Lucky Karim. I am a member of the Rohingya 
community from Burma. I would like to start by thanking members 
of the committee for holding this hearing and for passing the 
Burma Genocide Accountability Protection Act, or Burma GAP Act, 
out of committee.
    I was forced to flee my home at the age of 14 in August 
2017, when the Burmese military raised a genocidal attack 
against the Rohingya people in Rakhine State. As a child, I 
lived in the world's largest refugee center, in Cox's Bazar, 
Bangladesh, for 6 years.
    The Burmese military regime has been persecuting the 
Rohingya in Myanmar for decades. Since the military coup in 
Myanmar in February 2021, the political, economic, and 
humanitarian crisis in the country has only grown more dire for 
the Rohingya as well as other ethnic minorities in Burma.
    There are many members of the Rohingya community in Rakhine 
State that died from hunger. Internally displaced people have 
zero access to humanitarian aid, and the genocidal violence 
continues even to this day. As a result, tens of thousands of 
people have been forced to flee their homes since 2023, 
bringing the total population of people languishing in the 
Cox's Bazar camps to more than 1.3 million.
    I only have 5 minutes for this testimony, but I could spend 
the entire day listing the abuses suffered by the other ethnic 
and religious groups in Burma. Not only Rohingya Muslim but 
also Shan, Korai (phonetic), Kachin, Mon, Karenni, Rakhine, 
Chin, Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu, all across our diverse 
nation, have endured years of persecution, war crimes, and 
indiscriminate violence by the Burmese military. All minorities 
have suffered, and all need to be part of the democratization 
process.
    Despite the reality on the ground, Burmese military regime 
is planning a sham election next month. This election will 
never be free or fair. It is only the way for the military 
regime to seek international legitimacy. Our risky journeys out 
of Myanmar in pursuit of a better life did not start when the 
genocidal attacks against us peaked in 2017. People have been 
fleeing persecution since at least the 1970's, forced to be 
refugees in neighboring countries like Bangladesh or elsewhere.
    I traveled back to Bangladesh refugee camps two times this 
year. When I was there in February, The World Food Program was 
preparing to announce cost of food ration for refugees to go 
down from $12 to just $6 per month for each individual. This is 
a cut that would have had devastating consequences.
    Thankfully, the United States has stepped up to continue 
funding. But that funding will only last a few more months. 
Meanwhile, the closing of USAID and broader aid cuts have 
caused health clinics, learning centers and other programs to 
close. People in Cox's Bazar camps are fully dependent on the 
food ration that they receive once a month because the majority 
of them have zero earnings. There are no livelihood 
opportunities for families in the camps.
    The Government of Bangladesh, long and generous host to 
Rohingya refugees, has done much for my community. But 
expanding access to livelihood and education would do perhaps 
more than any other policy to ensure a safe and sustainable 
future for the Rohingya community.
    In our homeland, most urgently, too many of our people 
continue to die due to violence and hunger. The international 
community and the U.S. Government must act now to pressure the 
Myanmar military to stop its attacks and to allow aid into 
Rakhine and other areas across the country facing high levels 
of food insecurity as we consider the future for my community.
    Repatriation to our ancestral homeland is the ultimate 
solution. It has been said before by myself and many other 
Rohingya but bears repeating. We, the Rohingya community, want 
to go back to our homeland in Rakhine State when it is safe to 
do so.
    Here is what the U.S. Government can do more to help us. 
Congress should pass the Burma Genocide Accountability and 
Protection Act, or the Burma GAP Act, which lists out a 
comprehensive policy for addressing many of the crises 
affecting our county. It would support refugees and internally 
displaced people. It would address the need for accountability 
for genocide and crimes against humanity by the Burmese 
military. It would also promote long-term solution for the 
Rohingya, such as citizenship rights, safe and voluntary return 
to Burma, and inclusion in a future Federal democratic system.
    The bill also authorized the creation of the U.S. Special 
Representative for Burma and calls on the administration to 
refuse to recognize the Burmese military as the country's 
legitimate government. This is so important ahead of the sham 
elections scheduled for next month.
    Congress should also call for the immediate restoration of 
the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program. I am one of the few who 
have benefited from the kindness of the American people and 
America's rich history of resettling refugees. It has given me 
and many others the opportunity to speak up on the world stage 
in support of my community.
    And the United States should continue to engage the 
Bangladesh Government toward providing education and livelihood 
opportunities for Rohingya refugees.
    I would like to end here with a question for you. What will 
it take for my people to be able to live freely and securely in 
our home in Burma? And when the future generation of Rohingya 
look back, will they still be asking the same question, or will 
they be home at last, asking simply what took so long? Thank 
you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Karim follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Ms. Karim, for those 
questions, and we hope to address those. That is the whole 
purpose of this hearing because we wanted to make sure that the 
suffering and the suffering of the Rohingya population are not 
forgotten, and we wanted to make sure that we are paying 
attention. So I hope those who are watching and listening know 
how committed we are. Thank you.
    I didn't mean to skip over you. As I was talking to my 
colleague over here, ladies first. So let me now recognize Mr. 
Ross for your opening statement.

                    STATEMENT OF STEVE ROSS

    Mr. Ross. Chairwoman Kim, Chairman Huizenga, Ranking 
Members Bera and Kamlager-Dove, and distinguished members of 
the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify and for 
your continued attention to Myanmar.
    In summarizing my written statement, I will emphasize three 
key points. First, the Myanmar military is a primary driver of 
instability within Myanmar and has been so for decades. Second, 
planned elections are an attempt to consolidate and entrench 
the military's control in Myanmar. And third, the regime that 
emerges from elections will continue to pose a threat to 
stability in Myanmar, the region, and U.S. interests in both 
the Indo-Pacific and at home.
    Nearly 5 years ago, a military coup in Myanmar prevented a 
democratically elected parliament from taking office. After the 
military opened fire on peaceful protesters, armed resistance 
grew and Myanmar's civil war expanded to most of the country.
    In response, the Myanmar military has waged a brutal 
counterinsurgency campaign with devastating and intentional 
impacts on civilians. The Myanmar military has killed thousands 
of civilians, many victims of indiscriminate air strikes and 
torture, jailed 20,000 political prisoners, torched 120,000 
homes, displaced three and a half million people, blocked 
humanitarian aid and access to communications, and implemented 
a system of State surveillance.
    Despite this, resistance forces have made remarkable gains 
against the military. Operation 1027, a key 2023 offensive, 
yielded unprecedented territorial victories and demonstrated 
unprecedented collaboration among ethnic and Burmese armed 
groups. Territorial gains have allowed resistance actors to 
establish or consolidate bottom-up governance structures 
providing social services and humanitarian assistance.
    Significant support from China, the forced conscription of 
80,000, and an escalation of air attacks has enabled the 
Myanmar military to shift some of the momentum on the 
battlefield over the past year. But it has only managed to 
regain a fraction of the territory it has lost.
    It is in this context that the Myanmar military now plans 
to hold elections beginning December 28. The results are 
foreordained. A 2023 law effectively dissolved political 
parties, including the National League for Democracy, which won 
86 percent of the 498 seats elected to the parliament in 2020. 
In contrast, the 57 parties contesting this year won only 11 
percent of seats, and only one party, the military proxy USDP, 
won more than five seats.
    The regime also changed the electoral system to include 
proportional representation to give the impression that 
elections are taking place in a wider swath of territory than 
will be the case. Stifling dissent, the military has arrested 
200 people under a new law that punishes criticism of or 
disruption to the elections.
    These so-called elections will not be free, fair, or 
inclusive. They do not represent the will of the Myanmar 
people, and they do not present a path either toward democracy 
or a peaceful and sustainable solution to Myanmar's conflict. 
Rather, they are intended to garner international recognition 
for the regime in the hopes that this will translate into 
political, financial, and military support that enables it to 
consolidate control. If it succeeds, the Myanmar military will 
continue to pose a threat to regional instability and U.S. 
interests in the Indo-Pacific and at home.
    China wields unparalleled and growing sway in Myanmar, 
throwing its weight around to advance its geostrategic 
interests through major infrastructure projects, trade routes, 
and access to Myanmar's rare earths. China also seeks to 
maintain leverage over all stakeholders in Myanmar and ensure 
Myanmar remains within its sphere of influence and the West 
stays out. Though it may be tempting to engage the Myanmar 
military to contain China, doing so would undermine U.S. 
interests.
    Scam centers have proliferated since the coup, with Chinese 
crime syndicates, the Myanmar military, and military-aligned 
militias all profiting from the $10 billion Americans lost to 
scams last year. A recent crackdown on KK Park is purely 
performative. Scam leaders were allowed to escape, evidence was 
destroyed, and dozens of scam centers with over 100,000 people, 
many trafficking victims, continue to operate with impunity.
    Myanmar is also the world's largest producer of opium and 
the production of methamphetamines and synthetic drugs has 
surged since the coup. Moreover, Myanmar is the world's sixth 
leading source of refugees and, with the collapse in 
immunizations and treatment for infectious disease, risks 
becoming a hot spot for global health crises.
    Given the threat that the Myanmar military poses to the 
U.S. interests, Congress and the U.S. administration should: 
Reject the military planned elections and the regime that 
emerges while encouraging partners and allies in the region to 
do the same; Engage and support the spectrum of democratic and 
resistance actors who offer a better prospect for securing a 
peaceful Myanmar that advances U.S. interests; Provide 
continued life-saving humanitarian support to populations in 
Myanmar and refugees in neighboring countries while ensuring 
aid is not channeled through the military; Seek to 
counterbalance Chinese influence while managing expectations 
for the U.S. role. And building upon recent efforts, address 
transnational crime through additional targeted sanctions, 
enhance enforcement and coordination, and improve investigative 
capacity.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ross follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you very much for all of your 
wonderful testimoneys.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning. So we 
have all heard from you, and you know there is going to be an 
election that is taking place soon, next month. But under the 
current situation, political prisoners are still detained, and 
opposition parties are excluded. And the military controls the 
elections.
    So we know the election will be predetermined, as we 
mentioned. So, under these conditions, can any legitimate 
electoral outcome occur, and how should the United States 
respond to that? And do we categorically just reject those 
elections, or is there any value in limited engagement?
    I would like to ask Ambassador Currie and Mr. Ross to 
respond.
    Ms. Currie. Thank you for the question, Madam Chairwoman. I 
think that we must refuse to recognize the elections. They will 
be uncategorically--I mean, there is no way they could 
represent a genuine expression of the will of the Burmese 
people for all the reasons that have been laid out already.
    I think that the other important thing to do is to 
recognize the decisive enabler role that China, again, is 
playing with the elections. They are not only publicly backing 
the elections and the regime in this role, but they are putting 
pressure on other ASEAN countries to have ASEAN recognized and 
participate in these elections.
    So far ASEAN has resisted that pressure. It is important 
regionally that we backstop ASEAN and make sure that they 
understand that we will not recognize the elections and 
encourage them also not to agree to recognize those elections.
    I think also that we need to be very clear about--typically 
we have legislation in place that is global, that allows us to 
put sanctions on individuals who are involved in tearing down 
Democratic institutions, and we can use those authorities. I 
would encourage that we do that.
    I think we also need to make it very clear by getting rid 
of regime appointed diplomats who are in the United States, 
especially those who are involved in terrorizing Myanmar 
citizens who are here in the United States. And that includes 
the militaryes at the Embassy here and at their permanent 
mission in New York who are involved in transnational 
oppression. Those individuals are likely to be used to force 
people and coerce them to participate in this election. And we 
want to make sure that they are not doing that on U.S. soil.
    Thank you.
    Mrs. Kim. Thank you. Mr. Ross.
    Mr. Ross. Thank you. I agree with Ambassador Currie and 
would add that I don't think that the elections can be viewed 
as legitimate and that they should be rejected by the U.S.
    What the military is hoping out of these elections is that 
there will be a slippery slope of recognition and support from 
within the region that flows to beyond it. And that will 
translate into the political, financial, and military support 
that will enable it to consolidate control in Myanmar.
    And as I have stated in my opening statement and in my 
written statement, I think that is counter to U.S. interest.
    Thank you.
    Mrs. Kim. Thank you very much.
    I know both of you had talked about China's influence and 
about how they control so much of what is going on right now 
and including, of course, and I pay a lot of attention to the 
importance of critical Myanmar supply chain. But this is also 
an issue. But we wanted to focus much of today's hearing on 
sham elections and scam centers and the implications of Beijing 
backing the junta to victory through these militia admitted 
elections.
    So can you quickly talk about what leverage we have? You 
talked about using sanctions and all. But are there any ways 
that we can really come down on what is happening and what kind 
of leverage can the United States have to mitigate the 
consequences of China-backed military regime?
    Ms. Currie. I think we do still have headroom on our 
sanctions regimes to ensure that we are not facilitating the 
financial resources that allow the regime to conduct the 
election and then continue to operate before, during, and 
after.
    We have been very effective in terms of cutting off arms 
access and financial pathways for the regime. But there is 
still more that we can do there. And, again, the purpose of 
sanctions is to keep these illicit transactions out of the U.S. 
financial system. So we have a vested interest in keeping these 
bad actors out.
    So I think we do need to think more creatively and 
aggressively. And we need to stop taking sanctions off of 
people like the arms dealer that we just removed sanctions for 
no apparent reason on one of the regime's biggest arms dealers. 
So we need to stop doing things like that.
    And we need to support the opposition, find more creative 
ways to assist the Democratic opposition through the kinds of 
means that Chairman Huizenga has put forward in the Burma BRAVE 
Act and in the Burma Act that has already passed Congress and 
has been signed by the President and has a lot of tools 
available.
    Sorry for going over time.
    Mrs. Kim. Thank you very much. I am sorry.
    My time is up so I am going to recognize Ranking Member 
Cindy Kamlager-Dove for questions.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Karim, I wanted to expand on something that you had 
mentioned in your opening testimony about the restrictions 
placed on the Rohingya's ability to leave the camps or earn a 
living.
    Can you speak to the impact that funding cuts to the 
humanitarian response have on the refugee's quality of life?
    Ms. Karim. Thank you. I think we have seen two kinds of aid 
cuts in the past. One time it went down from $12 to $10. The 
other time it went down from $12 to $8 for Russian food from 
welfare program that the refugees receive every month.
    And we have seen hundreds of women and children have taken 
weeks on a China boat traveling to neighboring countries. They 
intended to Malaysia but they end up in Indonesia or Thailand 
and even Myanmar border and be jailed for 5 years on a possible 
case or so.
    I have seen those results happen when the aid cuts. Two 
times happening in the past. And then as I mentioned in my 
opening statement but also in the written statement, it was 
then asked--and then I was preparing already in February. And 
if that happened, then we would assume the people might even 
return back to Burma and be killed because that is the only 
option refugees would then have. Because we have seen refugees 
when they arrive in those neighboring countries, they are not 
being welcomed. They are recognized as refugee and are not 
being allowed to work, and they are being called the illegal 
immigrant in those countries and even being detained for years 
and years.
    So those are the recent impacts of the aid cuts we have 
seen. But there are many. The programs for women and children 
in the camps for GBB, for example, protections and other 
programs have completely closed in the camps, including the 
learning centers for children that used to be run by UNICEF and 
other agencies in the camps have completely been closed.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. So thank you for that. Also I know that 
the Trump Administration terminated U.S. support for the
    Asian University for women in Bangladesh, which allows 
disadvantaged women to get higher education via U.S.-funded 
scholarships.
    So could you speak to, and maybe you, too, Ambassador 
Currie, speak to the impact of that program for Rohingya girls 
and the need for education for children in the camps?
    Ms. Karim. Yes, I was one of the first Rohingya girl to 
begin with and to go to the University back in 2019. And we now 
have, I think, a hundred students or already at the campus.
    For generations and generations in Burma, Rohingya have 
been denied access to education after just high schools. And so 
this was the first time in many generations that women had--a 
larger group of women had access to higher education at the 
university and that allows women to be part of the 
decisionmaking processes to speak of--again, there are 
logistics--and to be able to do the works in the camps freely 
and to serve the community and their families. And I am one of 
the examples of that, getting access to the education from the 
university and being able to deliver the message of my 
community today.
    So that will allow the Rohingya women to prevent from 
gender violence, from sexual violence, from even human 
traffickers to get access to education. So I would encourage 
you to continue funding the programs and to allow Rohingya 
children in the campus and especially girls in particular at 
the university to continue studying.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. And I don't know, Ambassador 
Currie, if you want to add?
    Ms. Currie. I think you can see from Lucky that she is one 
of the success stories of that program and that initiative. 
There was also an initiative to fund slots at that same 
university for Afghan women and girls that has also been, as 
far as I know, is also gone.
    This is, again, a very small program. It was a really--but 
very high impact. We were able to leverage small amounts of 
funding, give the scholarships through the Asian University for 
Women. And they were--it created a network of women within the 
camps who were able to advocate for their own rights, the 
rights of their family, the rights of their camp bloc to deal 
with situations of gender-based violence, of criminal gangs 
operating in the camps. These women were really, and have been, 
and still are one of the main protective elements in the camps 
where there aren't very many protective elements.
    And you have to imagine a city of 1.3 million people that 
is basically run by criminal gangs and that is mostly comprised 
of women and children. And you can only, you know, let your 
mind wander to where that ends up.
    It is a really dangerous and deprived place, the camps in 
Kutupalong. And so these women really are incredible in the 
work that they do inside the camps and to protect the 
communities and their families.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mrs. Kim. Thank you. I now recognize Chairman Huizenga for 
your 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to first 
start by actually submitting for the record the letter signed 
by the 90 groups.
    Mrs. Kim. Yes, without objection.
    Mr. Huizenga. Thank you. And I want to say thank you to 
each of you for being here and helping shed some light on this. 
And Ambassador Currie, I am going to start with you.
    In June 2024, the U.N. Special Rapporteur Tom Andrews 
produced a report called, Banking on the Death Trade. And he 
found that the junta is increasingly reliant on Thai companies 
and banks to facilitate the importation of weapons and other 
material, making Thailand the leading source of Burmese 
military supplies purchased through the International Banking 
System.
    Additionally, with the sanctioning of the MFTB and the 
MICB, the junta has moved its financial services to the MEB. 
And my bill, which you had mentioned, the BRAVE Burma Act, 
calls for mandatory sanctions on MEB. And the impact would 
allow U.S. and allied sanctions on MEB to disrupt the junta's 
ability to wage war. And I might add that there are a few other 
initiatives, the Burma GAP Act and the Dismantle Foreign Scam 
Syndicates Act offered by Ranking Member Meeks and our 
colleague from Indiana, Mr. Shreve, respectively, and I believe 
they should be considered necessary steps to cripple the junta 
as well.
    But could you illuminate us a little bit on what that would 
mean to disrupt the military, the junta's ability to wage war 
against these ethnic resistance organizations?
    Ms. Currie. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. I 
think that what we should do first of all is thank the Thais 
for following up on that report and debanking the entities that 
were involved.
    Unfortunately, as you know, the Myanmar Economic Bank, the 
MEB, has set up another pathway. So we do need to put full 
sanctions on the MEB.
    There was an argument at one point that there would be 
humanitarian effects on this and that it would create problems 
for the people in Burma. But I think it is important to 
understand that most people in Burma do not use the formal 
banking system. They do everything they can to avoid any 
engagement with the formal economy, with the government, 
because it is so predatory, and they know that the government 
treats the MEB or the junta--I shouldn't call it the 
government. The junta treats the MEB a piggy bank to fund the 
war effort.
    So they are very well aware of this. And so they avoid 
those official systems, and it is believed that the effect will 
be minimal.
    But we do need to--we do know the MEB is sanctioning--is 
still moving forward. And sanctioning MEB would interrupt some 
of the flows from Russia and China that allow them to purchase 
weapons. Because Russia and China want to be paid in dollars. 
They do not want Jot.
    Let's be very clear. They are setting up some alternative 
mechanisms to pay in renminbi. But the Russians want cash on 
the barrelhead. They need hard currency. And so they need the 
money.
    So sanctioning MEB and UAB, which is another path that they 
use, another bank, would be very important.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Huizenga. So, I am hearing keep the pressure up in 
Thailand. Thank them for what they have done, but let's 
continue that conversation.
    Sorry. I am going to be trying to go quickly to both Ms. 
Karim and possibly Mr. Ross here.
    Until this really resolves, I am curious what influence 
does the U.S. have with host countries like Bangladesh to 
prevent harmful repatriation of the refugees to the Rakhine 
State so. And Karim, if you would like.
    Ms. Karim. Thank you. As I clearly mentioned in the written 
statement, I think it is just not safe for us to--for refugees 
in Cox's Bazar to return back to Myanmar. There has to be much 
more to get done to create a condition that would allow 
Rohingya to return back to Myanmar.
    And the U.S. could definitely support creating some 
international monetary inside the country to make sure the 
conditions and situations are getting improved.
    And there are parts, though it sounds like impossible to 
send back these refugees at this time given the ground reality, 
but there are parts--allowing internally displaced people to 
return back to their homes without any conditions and 
restrictions and allowing the humanitarian actors, 
organizations, and donors to operate legally and freely within 
the Rakhine State to improve condition and provide humanitarian 
help for those who remain in the country.
    Mr. Huizenga. Okay. Mr. Ross, 10 seconds.
    Mr. Ross. Yes, I would just add that there are several 
countries in the region that have forcibly repatriated Myanmar 
nationals not only Rohingya into Myanmar despite the risks that 
they have faced in doing so. And there is a role that the U.S. 
can play in engaging with these countries, encouraging them not 
to undertake this practice, and ensuring that non-refoulement 
is not an option that they pursue. Thanks.
    Mr. Huizenga. I yield back. Thank you.
    Mrs. Kim. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from 
Rhode Island, Mr. Amo, Representative Amo.
    Mr. Amo. Thank you, Chairwoman Kim and Chairman Huizenga 
for hosting this joint hearing. And thank you to the ranking 
members and thank you to our witnesses for being here.
    You know, on May 21, Secretary Rubio testified in front of 
our committee and told me directly in my questioning that no 
children are dying on our watch because of the Trump 
Administration's cuts to foreign aid. ``No children are dying 
on our watch.'' That was untrue then and it is untrue today. 
Children were dying on his watch and sadly, they still are.
    Recent reportings found that President Trump and Secretary 
Rubio's cuts to our foreign assistance program and the illegal 
dismantling of USAID led to the deaths of over 600,000 people, 
including 400,000 children worldwide.
    To put that in perspective, Chair Kim, that is more than 
the entire population of Anaheim, 346,000, and Orange, 139,000, 
your district or more than twice the population of Grand 
Rapids, 200,000 or Kalamazoo, 73,000, the Michigan Chair 
Huizenga.
    More than half a million people are dead because of this 
administration's callousness. And few countries have been hit 
as hard as Burma.
    Look, civilians are dying at the hands of Burmese military 
junta, but also from malnutrition and lack of medical care. the 
United nations estimates over 6 million children in Burma need 
humanitarian assistance.
    Now before Trump's literal incineration of our foreign aid, 
the United States was the largest supporter of aid to Burma and 
Burmese refugees in surrounding countries.
    Congress had specifically authorized funds in a bipartisan 
effort to help the people of Burma. While the President has 
made new commitments focused on refugees, these cuts already 
decimated aid programs in Burma. Health care centers were 
shuttered and the World Food Program was forced to cut back on 
food aid to over 1 million people.
    A Rohingya resident of a Burmese internment camp, Mohammed 
Tahir, said ``I lost my son because of the funding cuts. And it 
is not only me. Many more children in other camps have also 
died helplessly from hunger, malnutrition, and no medical 
treatment.'' Mohammed shared this story 2 weeks before 
Secretary Rubio was here in our committee claiming that no 
children were dying under his watch.
    To be very clear, people have needlessly died because of 
this administration's decisions. And they are still dying. We 
could restart many of these aid programs tomorrow. The funds 
that Congress appropriated to save lives and support American 
jobs is available. We could bolster the production of ready-to-
use therapeutic foods like Plumpy'Nut made by Edesia Nutrition 
in Rhode Island.
    Plumpy'Nut, as you might know, is a miracle product that 
can save a child from severe acute malnutrition in as little as 
6 weeks using U.S. grown food products that support American 
workers and families.
    Ms. Karim, could you please describe the role of American-
funded emergency food products, things like Plumpy'Nut and the 
role that they play in Burma and for the Burmese refugee 
populations and surrounding countries? And how are the cuts to 
American-funded food programs threatening the lives of children 
that had previously been served?
    Ms. Currie. I am not sure I can do that in 70 seconds, but 
what I can say is that----
    Mr. Amo. I am sorry. That was for Ms. Karim.
    Ms. Currie. I am sorry. I thought you said----
    Mr. Amo. That is Okay.
    Ms. Karim. Thank you. Thank you for the question. I think 
largely, U.S.--United States has been one of the largest donors 
to Rohingya refugees from day one. We are very grateful for 
that. And U.S.'s funding is not only serving the people in the 
camps, feeding the people, but it is also an encouragement to 
other donor countries to step up or to step back from funding 
their programs in the camps.
    After the USAID cuts, we have seen UK, Germany, and other 
largest donors to Rohingya refugee are also stepping away from 
funding. And we are grateful for the recent $60 million funds 
for lifesaving assistance programs, and it comes by the United 
States in September.
    The USAID cuts largely and more directly and personally 
have impacted the community members in the camps. And 
especially for children, including nutritions and learning 
centers, as I said, and other programs that used to provide 
protections and other programs that have completely been 
eliminated after the USAID cuts. And that puts children, as a 
group as a whole, at huge risk, including being trafficked and 
kidnapped in many countries, even within the camps, and even 
being forcibly recruited by the armed actors in the camps to be 
sent back to Myanmar for fighting with the military.
    And we have seen hundreds of people were also sent back to 
Myanmar by the actors because they have nothing to do in the 
camps simply. They are not going to schools. They don't have 
anything to do. They are just in their tiny shelters all day 
and all night.
    So the USAID cuts at large have directly and more 
personally impacted the lives of refugees, but in particular 
the women and children.
    Mr. Amo. Thank you for sharing that. And I know my time is 
expiring, but it is very clear, lives harmed irreparably and 
also these foreign aid cuts are devastating our credibility in 
the region.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mrs. Kim. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Representative Perry, for your questions.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for our 
witnesses for being here. It distresses me that we start out 
the conversation by blaming the United States of America's 
taxpayers and citizens for the problems in Burma. And I remind 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this has been 
going on for a long time.
    They might not have been here, but I have been here. And 
the United States, in many cases and certainly under other 
administrations, have sent humanitarian assistance, which we 
all want to do. We all want to help.
    But I sat in this very room and complained that while we 
all were complaining about the plight of the Rohingya, by the 
time we got to doing something real about it, there weren't 
going to be any Rohingya left.
    So it distresses me that that is where we are going to 
start the conversation. So let's move on to something where we 
can actually try and find some tangible results, some success 
here.
    I guess I am going to turn to Mr. Ross and Ms. Currie about 
what we can do as the United States of America that doesn't 
encumber our taxpayers anymore, because we are $38 trillion in 
debt, right? But what can we do that is actually going to have 
a tangible result impacting negatively the junta in Burma, 
right?
    What about the STAR, the Stolen Asset Recovery System? What 
about access to SWIFT? What are things that we can do to hobble 
them and empower the people of Burma and the Rohingya? Go 
ahead, any one of you.
    Mr. Ross. Sure, I will start. Thank you for the question. I 
think there are several things that the U.S. can and should be 
doing that do not require financial resources.
    It does not require resources for us to reject the 
elections, to engage partners and allies in the region to do 
the same. What the Myanmar military craves is legitimacy and 
denying them that will have follow-on impacts for their ability 
to wage war against the Myanmar people.
    In addition to that, I think the sanctions regime that has 
been imposed has been a good starting point. I would go beyond 
the imposition of sanctions itself and look at coordination, 
both interagency within the U.S. on sanctions enforcement and 
coordination with allies and partners outside of the U.S. to 
ensure that it is not just U.S. sanctions that are having an 
impact.
    I will stop there.
    Mr. Perry. And to date, from either, from any 
administration, those things haven't really been imposed or 
refined to the furthest extent that they could be. Is that 
about right?
    Mr. Ross. Yes, that is correct.
    Mr. Perry. Okay.
    Mr. Ross. I think there has been a strong imposition of 
sanctions in an incremental manner. But the enforcement has not 
been nearly as strong as it could be.
    Mr. Perry. Okay. Ma'am.
    Ms. Currie. Yes, sir. I would agree that there are ways. 
The first thing that I think we should do is consider placing 
frozen Burmese assets. There is about $1.5 billion in frozen 
Burmese funds, foreign exchange funds, that are sitting in an 
account right now, just frozen.
    We can put those into a managed account and use the 
interest to provide for some of the humanitarian needs, use the 
growth or whatever interest on those accounts much as we are 
doing with Ukraine, with the Russian assets. We can require 
that----
    Mr. Perry. And that requires no act of Congress, right? The 
Treasury could do that all on its own.
    Ms. Currie. The Treasury can do that with its independent 
authority today.
    Mr. Perry. Okay.
    Ms. Currie. We should also make sure that countries that 
are receiving humanitarian assistance from the United States, 
whether through the United Nations or bilaterally are providing 
opportunities for refugees and refugee communities to do work 
themselves.
    These people want to work. They will work inside the camps. 
They will do things, work for pay. And the governments in these 
countries, Bangladesh sadly, but also Thailand, has limited the 
ability of people to work. And Thailand has a labor shortage. 
They need workers but they deny them the opportunity to do 
this.
    And so we need to be more robust in using our diplomacy to 
help alleviate some of the burden by allowing these communities 
to be a little bit more self-sustaining and have access to 
other services locally. And we can work with them to provide 
those services in a much more cost-effective way.
    It is cheaper for us to give the Thais some support to 
allow access or Burmese or Bangladesh some support to allow 
access to local services than for us to create a parallel 
system for the refugees.
    So there are ways we can maximize what we are doing without 
spending more money while also benefiting these communities in 
important ways. Burma has been kicked out of the SWIFT system 
for some time. Again, clamping down on some of these things, 
also going after crypto and putting them--taking money that 
they have stolen, whether it is scam centers or the government, 
out of crypto accounts and moving it into the new U.S. crypto 
account that we can do with the asset recovery would be a great 
way to help support some of these programs.
    Mr. Perry. So with the chairman's indulgence, I would just 
say that you two individuals, if you would get the list of 
things that you would recommend to my office, we would like to 
put that in a form to the administration as a request.
    And I imagine you have a lot of people on this committee on 
both sides of the aisle that are interested in being a part of 
that.
    And with that, I yield back and I thank the chair.
    Mrs. Kim. Sure. I now recognize Ranking Member Ami Bera 
from California for your 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you, Madam Chair. And my apologies. I had 
to step out so if this is ground that has already been covered. 
Maybe it is a question for Mr. Ross.
    Getting an assessment of where the conflict is right now, 
there have been times where the various ethnic resistance 
groups have made progress. It does seem like it is either at a 
stalemate or perhaps they lost some of that progress as China 
has kind of changed.
    Could you give us an assessment of what you see on the 
ground?
    Mr. Ross. Sure. Thank you for the question. I don't like 
the term stalemate for the conflict in Myanmar. It is a very 
dynamic conflict, and it is constantly changing.
    Over the last 2 years, the resistance and ethnic armed 
groups have made significant territorial gains since the launch 
of Operation 1027 in Shan State, in Kachin State in the north 
near the border with China, in the southeast in Karen, in the 
west in Rakhine State as well as in the center in some Myanmar 
majority regions.
    Some of those gains have been rolled back a bit in the last 
year as China has swung behind the military and put significant 
pressure on ethnic armed groups, particularly those on the 
China/Myanmar border that have pressed them into bilateral 
cease-fire agreements, which have been--allowed the Myanmar 
military to redeploy resources and arms against other armed 
actors.
    So that has shifted the momentum somewhat over the last 
year. But the military has only been able to retake small parts 
of the land that it has lost, and there are significant parts 
of the country that it does not control and that will be 
reflected in where elections can and cannot be held when they 
start next month.
    Mr. Bera. And can I get your assessment on cooperation 
amongst the various ethnic resistance groups? Are they working 
well together? Are they fighting with each other?
    Mr. Ross. Yes, it varies around the country. I would say 
that Operation 1027 again was sort of a critical moment because 
it demonstrated a really unprecedented degree of collaboration 
between ethnic armed groups and Burmese resistance actors.
    Prior to that, some of the most important ethnic armed 
groups had not sat on the sidelines but had limited their 
engagement to training and support. Once they entered the fight 
in October 2023, there was much more operational collaboration.
    Some of that is at risk though. China has put significant 
pressure on ethnic armed groups not to collaborate among 
themselves and with Burmese resistance actors because that is 
seen as a significant threat to the regime in Naypyidaw, which 
has over decades pursued a divide and rule approach that has 
sought to split communities from one another. And China has 
aided and abetted that over the last year.
    Mr. Bera. And then just in the last few minutes I have to 
Ambassador Currie or to you, Mr. Ross, how can we best engage 
and support the ASEAN nations in this and then what would you 
like Congress to do to support the resistance groups outside of 
what you have already covered in terms of sanctions and 
secondary sanctions?
    Ms. Currie. Thank you for the question, sir. I think that 
as far as supporting the resistance groups, there is plenty of 
legislation already on the books that would allow the 
administration to do so.
    There are multiple problems, one being that the regional 
bureau that is now responsible for assistance to Burma is not 
well-suited to be implementing programs in this kind of 
conflict. Also because Burma is one of the seen issues, it is a 
problem both in the South Central Asia Bureau and the East Asia 
Pacific Bureau as evidenced by this hearing today. But those 
bureaus are not working together to address the problem.
    In fact EAP feels very proprietary about Burma and tends to 
block out SEA Bureau from dealing with it even though they are 
hosting 1.3 million refugees and are downstream of a lot of the 
consequences. And India plays a very important role here too. 
So there is a need.
    I think the special coordinator or special--if any 
situation cries out for some kind of special envoy, it is 
Burma. And so pushing the administration to appoint someone who 
can look at the problem holistically and recommend programs, 
recommend policy, really take ownership in a way. And it needs 
to be a senior level person.
    Mr. Bera. What would----
    Ms. Currie. Right now the person handling Burma is a DAS.
    Mr. Bera. What would you recommend us, with the ASEAN 
nations in Southeast Asia, that would you want us to push them 
to do?
    Ms. Currie. Again, you need someone like this, a senior 
level diplomat who can focus on Burma. He can go to the ASEAN 
ministerials and meet with the Ambassadors here in town solely 
to talk about the issue of Burma because it is like Number 7 on 
the list of priorities for EAP and ECA.
    Mr. Bera. So asking for a special envoy would be something 
that you would recommend Congress to push for?
    Ms. Currie. Continually, yes.
    Mrs. Kim. Great. Thank you very much. I believe that is 
something that we have been pushing for and have that special 
envoy in place to specifically serve and pay attention to what 
is going on in Burma. And that should be elevated to the 
Ambassadorial level as you mentioned.
    I wholeheartedly agree with that. I believe that is covered 
in the Burma Act, which we are working on, so.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Guam, Representative 
Moylan for your 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, yes, I appreciate 
this hearing today and hearing what you folks have to say. It 
is really a poor situation that we are in.
    You know, I recall just reading the economics or The 
Economist's article just in June where it talks about the same 
thing that you have been discussing. They start with an 
earthquake. Almost 4,000 people died. And then what happens 
next? The military coup in 2021, 10,000 civilians passed away 
there.
    And then the U.S. estimates that there is 3 million that 
have been displaced and 2 million in the blink of a famine. And 
all this made--now Myanmar is a hub of lawlessness in Asia. We 
have got illicit drug production. We have human trafficking. 
And we have this huge scam industry booming. We need to do 
something different.
    And I like what I hear from the recommendations that you 
have on where we are going with this committee. But with these 
issues, of course, the only one that seems to be happy here is 
the People's Republic of China, right? And they enjoy conflict. 
And they come in saying we want to negotiate peace and try to 
make western fear a mockery.
    And China says it can--otherwise, they will bully them. 
China says they can restrict electricity, water, internet 
access, goods, and a whole bunch more. So it is a threat to be 
peaceful. What a joke.
    And the recent State Authorization Act from this committee, 
I included an amendment that looks at promoting smart 
investment strategies as you were discussing to countries that 
receive aid from us.
    And no doubt the famine disasters and senseless killings 
should be approached from an international cooperation. And I 
appreciate what you are trying to do to make that happen.
    These efforts deserve their due attention and funding. But 
if Myanmar and the United Wa State Army refuse to cooperate 
with the United States while giving preference to China, I 
believe our aid should reflect their careless decision, and 
this is about putting the people before power.
    So Ambassador Currie, thank you for your long career in 
doing what you are doing and still wanting to continue. And 
your expertise in this is very helpful for us to understand.
    So your role in the Burma transition initiative, what do 
you see Myanmar going from its current situation and what 
meaningful arguments, and I have heard some, that you would 
like to expand upon would give us some stability from this 
chaos?
    Ms. Currie. Thank you, sir, for that question.
    Look, Burma is--yes, I started out as a congressional 
staffer 30 years ago working on Burma as I was telling 
Chairwoman Kim. And so many things that I dealt with 30 years 
ago are still problems today, and the United Wa State Army is 
one of them. They have only grown more powerful, wealthier, and 
more influential.
    We have sanctioned them for decades. And because we refuse 
to address the root cause of the problem which is, again, in 
Kunming and Beijing and the People's Republic of China the 
decisive enablers of this conflict just as they are in the 
conflict in Ukraine, they will continue to be able to be a 
scourge on the people of Burma and the region as one of the 
world's largest drug producers. They are to Asia what the 
cartels in Mexico are to the Western Hemisphere. I need to make 
people understand that. It is really a huge problem.
    We need to--Singapore continues to host their leadership 
and allow them to buy property there. Thailand continues to 
give them citizenship. The People's Republic of China 
especially continues to host their businesses and their wealth.
    We need to put secondary sanctions in place that really try 
to squeeze them and really empower the Drug Enforcement Agency 
and the Treasury Department to go after their assets. They have 
billions of dollars in assets. They can be targeted more 
effectively.
    As far as some of the other things that I think we can do, 
peace will only come to Burma when the people of that country 
are allowed to drive their own future without the interference 
of their big neighbor, China, and without the military creating 
the enabling environment for conflict that they have created 
since independence in that country for the past 80 years.
    So it is imperative that the military be driven out of 
power. There is no other way. And the people are doing it 
themselves. This is a DIY revolution. They get no support from 
anybody. But they are fighting. And, you know, they are winning 
without any help from us or anybody else.
    And so we should stop helping their adversaries at a 
minimum. Like, let's just stop helping their adversaries. And 
they can do this and then let them have the political space to 
solve their own problems.
    Mr. Moylan. Thank you so much. I ran out of time. I 
appreciate the comments. Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Mrs. Kim. Thank you. I now recognize the gentlelady from 
Washington, Representative Jayapal, for your 5 minutes of 
questioning.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much, Madam Chair for holding 
what I think is a really important and informative hearing. 
Thank you very much to our witnesses. I think we are all 
concerned about the plight of the millions harmed by the 
military junta in Burma and the many others including--
especially the Rohingya who have fled to all these neighboring 
countries.
    And I think as I have been listening to the three of your, 
I am reminded again about the importance of all the tools in 
our toolbox. And I know this hearing is titled America's 
Limited Options. I think we actually have more options in front 
of us than perhaps we are recognizing.
    And I am reminded in my 10 years of development work cross 
the world, including in South and Southeast Asia, the three-
legged stool was always security, humanitarian assistance, and 
development assistance. And I think that is still relevant 
here.
    I wanted to talk about China first because I think both Mr. 
Ross and Ambassador Currie have both spoken about this, and I 
think it is critically important.
    Given China's demonstrated interest in keeping the military 
junta in power, can you just briefly discuss why that is 
actually a reason for clear and consistent U.S. engagement in 
Burma? Because I think there is a constant discussion in the 
United States about whether something is in the American 
interest and to me you both have laid out a very clear case for 
why it is in our interest to engage on this issue. So maybe if 
you can briefly speak to this. I know, Mr. Ross, you recently 
authored an article about this topic as well.
    Mr. Ross. Sure, I can start. Thank you for the question. I 
think clear and consistent is a really important factor here.
    Since the coup, I think expectations have been raised about 
what the role the U.S. and other international actors can and 
will be in Myanmar. There are significant authorities that 
exist, particularly under the Burma Act and under the executive 
order that came out after the coup. But those have not been 
fully implemented to the extent possible.
    And both created expectations among the population in 
Myanmar about what role the U.S. would play and provided a 
pretext for China to become more involved and more fully back 
the Myanmar military.
    So I think being clear and consistent is an important 
through line for U.S. policy on Myanmar. I would add just a 
degree of nuance on China, which is that the relationship 
between the Myanmar military and China is a somewhat 
uncomfortable one.
    China does not like Min Aung Hlaing. And they are hoping 
that these elections create an alternate source of power that 
they can back instead of him.
    I don't necessarily think that things will play out in that 
way. I think that Min Aung Hlaing wants to hold on to both the 
commander-in-chief role and the presidency. And if that plays 
out in that way, it is possible that the pendulum of Chinese 
support for the military regime will shift back in a different 
direction.
    But more broadly, you know, I think that engaging clearly, 
consistently, finding ways to support the various Democratic 
and resistance actors that have the support of the people in 
Myanmar and are building up grass roots governance structures 
that will be a model for going forward is a way to go forward 
for U.S. policy.
    Ms. Jayapal. Anything you want to quickly add, Ambassador?
    Ms. Currie. Yes, ma'am. I would agree with what Steve says. 
I do think that the people themselves, again, like I said, this 
is DIY revolution. They are doing it on the ground, too.
    It is not just the arms struggle. It is also the governance 
structures they are building up. It is also the inner ethnic 
dialogs that are happening. They are painful, sometimes very 
ugly, sometimes very foolish, but they are happening in a way 
that has never happened before in the history of this country.
    And this is extremely healthy and important. It is costing 
us nothing for these things to happen. But we can support them 
in some important ways. We did cutoff some critical support 
that I think should come back.
    I think we also need to think about Thailand with a long 
border with Burma and our relationship with Thailand. They are 
our oldest security ally in our region.
    Ms. Jayapal. Ambassador, I am sorry. I want to get in a 
question for Ms. Karim before my time runs out.
    So I want to quickly--I am going to talk Democrat. I am the 
ranking member on the immigration subcommittee. And refugee 
resettlement has long been a bipartisan issue and a tool in our 
foreign assistance toolbox.
    And I know that you were resettled in the United States. 
But due to this current administration's very restrictive 
immigration policies, it would be almost impossible for you to 
resettle.
    Can you talk about your experience resettling and also why 
it is so important for us to keep that refugee resettlement 
program strong?
    Ms. Karim. I am sorry. I see there is not a second.
    Ms. Jayapal. Will the chairwoman just indulge your answer?
    Mrs. Kim. Yes.
    Ms. Karim. Yes, thank you for the question. I think, as you 
can see, I am one of the many examples. And I also want to 
acknowledge this. The resettlement program is one of the many 
solutions that we need. As I did mention, the ultimate goal for 
us is to return back to home when it is safe to do so. And it 
is not that--there is no condition situation for us now for 
refugees in Cox Bazar to go back.
    However, given the--as we have heard from three of us, 
given the current situation in the camps in Bangladesh and 
across the region, it is an issue in specific countries, it is 
very important to continue bringing refugees to this country, a 
country that care about the human rights, a country that gives 
identity to refugees, and a country that allows me to call a 
place home that I was never able to call a home for my entire 
life, and that actually allows me to continue advocating for 
millions of people left behind.
    Ms. Jayapal. So beautiful. Thank you. We are so fortunate 
to have you in this country.
    I appreciate your indulgence.
    Mrs. Kim. Of course. Thank you very much. I now recognize 
the gentleman from Indiana, Representative Shreve, for your 
questioning.
    Mr. Shreve. Thank you. And I thank our subcommittee chairs 
and ranking members for convening this hearing.
    This is a subject that matters to all of us in 
representative government because we have victims of this fast-
growing crime in all of our districts. But this is of 
particular importance to some of us that have large communities 
of Burmese citizens in our home states and districts.
    I represent a district in Indiana. Indiana is the home to 
42,000 Burmese. We have got about a quarter of the population 
in the U.S. in our State. And, of course, I have victims across 
my district as well. And this is a crime wave with victims on 
both ends. We recognize that.
    We have got victims of scams and then we have human 
trafficking victims on the other end of this very sad 
proposition. And as you noted, this is at its core rooted in 
money laundering. And so we have got the victims of the drug 
trade.
    Mr. Ross noted that annual revenues approached $10 billion. 
But I think we recognize that this crime wave is so 
underreported, so difficult to track, our office thinks that it 
may be a $15 billion a year problem today and sure to be much 
larger next year and the following year. And we have got so 
much work to do to get our arms around this problem. These scam 
centers represent a national security threat and a humanitarian 
crisis.
    Ambassador Currie and Mr. Ross, given our need to better 
understand what occurs inside these closed off scam compounds 
and considering that there is no formal process for collecting 
information from freed victims when they gain their freedom, if 
they gain their freedom, should a structured process be 
established to gather and analyze their accounts so we can 
learn from this?
    Ms. Currie. I think that is a wonderful idea, 
Representative Shreve. I think that one of the things that 
Thailand especially can do because most of these people end up 
in Thailand when they are rescued or flee these scam centers, 
and Thailand should think about how they can allow, whether it 
is the U.N. Office of Drug and Crimes or some other, or the 
U.N. Office of--the International Organization for Migration, 
to set up a special office in Mae Sot/Mae Sai area where most 
of these people come across the border to collect information.
    Right now, it is very ad hoc. I worked on a report for the 
U.N. on this a few years ago when it was not as well-known of a 
problem in 2021. And even then they were struggling to get 
their arms around it.
    Now it is a much bigger problem, much more serious. And you 
do need an inner agency approach here in the United States as 
well as at the international level.
    Thailand is really struggling to deal with it also because 
of corruption in the Thai domestic security forces and some of 
the other--and the reliance on the Thai banking system that 
these scam centers use to launder the money as well.
    So those are things that we really need to work with 
Thailand on.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Ross. I would echo Ambassador Currie that I think 
Thailand is really key, both as a conduit for people being 
trafficked into Myanmar and for people fleeing from the scam 
centers or being allowed to leave from them.
    At present, as I understand it, when people leave from scam 
centers into Thailand, it is the responsibility of their 
country to repatriate them to that country. So you have a very 
ad hoc process of people from dozens of countries, some of whom 
don't have diplomatic presence in Thailand, trying to figure 
out how to get their citizens back.
    And in the case of China, the Chinese nationals who are 
fleeing from the scam centers or leaving the scam centers and 
going back to China are being taken back on Chinese flights 
without any investigative process. So it is a black box for the 
U.S. and for everyone outside of China as to the information 
that those individuals have.
    Another key aspect of this is safe houses for those who are 
leaving or trying to leave from scam centers. And that in and 
of itself could be a useful information and intelligence 
gathering source.
    Ms. Currie. If I can add on that point? Right now ethnic 
armed groups from Burma, some of the Karen National Union in 
particular, are providing safe houses for scam trafficking 
victims themselves and doing this because these people end up 
in their territory and then they help them get repatriated. It 
is a kind of crazy situation.
    Mr. Shreve. I thank you both. My time has expired.
    Mrs. Kim. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from 
Texas, Representative Castro, for your lines of questioning.
    Mr. Currie. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony 
today. Ambassador Currie, you have served as Ambassador at 
large for global women's issues in the first Trump 
Administration.
    And in testimony to the Congress in 2020, you lauded the 
successes of the Women Peace and Security Act of 2017, 
bipartisan legislation enacted during the first Trump 
Administration to, as you said then, ``recognize the importance 
of women's meaningful participation in global security and 
peace efforts.''
    Recently, you echoed the same sentiments by warning that 
women are often invited into peace processes as an afterthought 
instead of as central political actors. You played an important 
role in the initial implementation of this landmark law and by 
all accounts, this was an important bipartisan effort during 
the first Trump Administration and also part of your legacy.
    So can you speak to how important this landmark legislation 
is, including in the context of Burma?
    Ms. Currie. I will try to be brief, but this is a topic 
close to my heart because I came into the women, peace, and 
security universe, as it is, from Burma by working with Burmese 
women in Thailand who had fled the regime in the 1980's and 
were forming women's organizations to stand up for peace and to 
get engaged in peace processes and to fight against the 
military regime through primarily non-violent means.
    So I have a long history of working with these women, and 
they really introduced the whole concept of women, peace, and 
security to me. So this is very close to my heart.
    Unfortunately, and, you know, when I was at U.S. United 
Nations, I would say--I would find myself in meetings and 
pointing out that you cannot solve problems created by men with 
guns by turning to men with guns for the solution. That is not 
how any of this is ever going to work.
    And so I think that we need to be mindful of that and that 
there continue to be very incredible women like Lucky Karim who 
are involved in this struggle today and are leading it in ways, 
including on the battlefield from the people's defense forces 
and the ethnic armed organizations that are fighting against 
the regime.
    There are many strong women on the battlefield, many strong 
women keeping communities safe and alive inside Burma and on 
the border. And they deserve our attention and our support.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Castro. Yes, and let me just ask a followup on that.
    You know, a critical component of the legislation is the 
annual report describing implementation of the law. And for the 
first time, the administration has failed to submit that report 
to Congress, which was due on October 31. The bill requires 
specialized training for U.S. diplomatic and development 
professionals on the role of women in peace processes.
    As far as we can tell, no such training has occurred this 
year. And they have eliminated key positions with implementing 
this law, including at the Office of Global Women's Issues, 
which you led during the first Trump Administration, and closed 
down the whole Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, 
which house the negotiation support unit, which supported the 
role of women in peace processes.
    A key for an assistance program supporting the law have 
been terminated with no explanation or transparency. And there 
is little to now remaining women, peace, and security expertise 
at the State Department, USAID, and DHS, three of the four 
agencies responsible for implementing the law.
    For the fourth, the Department of Defense, we understand 
that they are requesting that Congress repeal parts of the law 
to eliminate requirements that they conduct training for their 
officers.
    So I wanted to ask you, are you at all concerned that the 
administration has turned its back on its important bipartisan 
legislation that you had a big part in shaping?
    Ms. Currie. Not just me, but former Congressman Mike Walz, 
who was the co-chair of the Women, Peace, and Security Caucus 
in the Congress when he was here. I think this is a huge 
mistake, and I have spoken about this.
    I am working with other conservative women who support the 
Women, Peace, and Security Act, including women who have served 
this Nation faithfully and well. And it is a foolish and short-
sighted thing that is happening.
    I hope that the administration will recognize that 
President Trump did the right thing signing the Women, Peace, 
and Security Act in 2017, during his first term, and supporting 
this strongly from the White House. And that it is important 
not just for our domestic armed forces but also our position in 
the world and our security globally. Thank you.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you. And I have one last question. And 
for Ms. Karim, the answer may have to come for the record 
because I am running out of time. But I wanted to ask you. 
Rohingya advocates and U.N. investigators have documented how 
Facebook and other U.S. social media-based platforms or U.S.-
based social media platforms were used in Burma to spread hate 
speech and help organize attacks on Rohingya.
    In your view, have those companies done enough since 2017 
to ensure their platforms are not again used to incite violence 
against your community?
    We will take it for the record just because we run out 
unless----
    Mrs. Kim. I will allow that.
    Mr. Castro. Sure.
    Mrs. Kim. Thirty seconds to answer. If not, you are free to 
submit your response in writing. Your choice. Submit in 
writing? Okay. Thank you.
    I will now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, 
Representative Kean for your 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank our 
distinguished witnesses for being here today.
    As we evaluate the ongoing crisis in Burma, we must ensure 
that the U.S. continues to advocate for justice for the Burmese 
people. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today 
regarding opportunities to address the refugee crisis and 
ensure that religious freedom is protected.
    Ambassador Currie, a report from the United Nations in June 
of this year noted that the military in Burma is repressing the 
entry of aid into the country, noting that humanitarian workers 
have been physically blocked at checkpoints.
    What are the most effective means to ensure that aid is 
received by those, like the Rohingya, who need it the most?
    Ms. Currie. Very briefly, sir, working through cross-border 
organizations, including with ethnic health systems, ethnic 
educational systems, and there is a long history of U.S. 
support for cross-border assistance from Thailand and also 
working with India to help get cross-border assistance across 
the India-Burma border.
    And we are seeing increased cooperation between India, 
Bangladesh and actors in Rakhine State. Again, some of these 
folks are not people I would choose to cooperate with, but they 
are facilitating some aid into areas that have long been 
blocked.
    The regime consistently blocks any humanitarian assistance 
from going to areas outside of its control, and it 
instrumentalizes what humanitarian assistance flows through its 
channels. And we have--I have long recommended not providing 
any humanitarian assistance through regime controlled channels 
because it only benefits them.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you. Mr. Ross, how do you believe the 
sanctions and other economic actions in the U.S. Government can 
be used strategically to pressure the junta to protect the 
rights of all Burmese civilians?
    Mr. Ross. Thank you for the question. As I said earlier, I 
think that there has been an incremental approach to sanctions 
over the last almost 5 years, and I would say a much heavier 
focus on the imposition of sanctions than the enforcement or 
coordination of sanctions.
    So certainly I think there is some additional benefit from 
continuing to look at actors that are benefiting from the drug 
trade from scam centers that are supplying weapons to the 
military and looking at those actors. But there is also a lot 
on the table that is ripe for further enforcement and 
coordination interagency and also with other allies and 
partners.
    Mr. Kean. And then as a followup, Burma has increasingly 
aligned itself militarily with China and with Russia to 
armaments and training respectfully.
    How do you believe that these Burmese alliances will impact 
America's allies in the region?
    Mr. Ross. Sure. Yes, I think that the arms flows from China 
and Russia and to a lesser extent others in the region have an 
impact on stability within Myanmar and then have a spillover 
effect elsewhere in the region.
    So the outflow of refugees, the impact of disease that is 
not confined to borders, all of those things are follow-on 
impacts of the arms support that is being provided by China and 
Russia to the regime that enables it to continue to wage war 
against the Myanmar people.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you. Ms. Karim, can you please share what 
actions from the United States and other members of the 
international community have been the most impactful in 
addressing the plight of the Rohingya in Burma?
    Ms. Karim. Thank you for the question. The international 
community members and the United States have done a lot 
already. I think I would also want to mention for the last two 
and a half years, because of the competing priorities in the 
world, we have lost the attention--the level of support and 
attention from the international community members, and I would 
like to call on them to continue engaging on these issues and 
to work to make sure that the issues have been addressed 
timely.
    The United States could do much more, including providing 
funding to matching the programs on the ground, but also 
working with the host country, including Bangladesh, to allow 
refugees to work within the camps.
    These are the short and medium term solutions that we need 
but for the long term, to facilitate the sustainable and 
dignified and safe return for those who are still in the camps 
back to our homeland in Burma.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you. And I yield back my time.
    Mrs. Kim. Thank you. And let me now recognize the gentleman 
from Texas, Representative Self.
    Mr. Self. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I want to explore--you have painted a picture of basically 
Burma being fractured. I want to explore the idea that are they 
becoming a client State of China? For a couple of reasons, the 
Belt and Road initiatives and the Kyaukphyu Deep Water Port and 
the China Myanmar pipelines because it looks to me as though 
this gives a strategic advantage to China by allowing them to 
bypass the Strait of Malacca.
    So first of all, let's start with that. Ambassador?
    Ms. Currie. Yes, sir. China sees Burma as their gateway to 
the Indian Ocean. This has been a plan that has been in place 
for some time now. Jodhpur is existential for China. That port 
and those pipelines are critical infrastructure for them. They 
will do whatever it takes to preserve those. And they are doing 
whatever it takes right now to preserve their access and for 
precisely the reasons that you State.
    The biggest threat to that right now is the ascent of the 
Arakan Army in Rakhine State where Jodhpur is located. And so 
one of the reasons that the Chinese have become more of a 
decisive enabler of the regime's war and are trying to shut 
down some of the problems in other areas of the country are to 
allow the Burma army to target its resources on the areas that 
China--that are most critical to China.
    And right now you have Chinese armed forces, police and 
armed forces, operating inside Burmese territory to protect 
critical infrastructure for the Chinese. This is unprecedented 
in the history of Burma.
    As Mr. Ross said, the Burma military hates the Chinese 
because they have a long history of enmity. And the fact that 
Min Aung Hlaing has allowed China to become so influential in 
that country is a sign of his desperation and weakness. But 
China is fully taking advantage of all of it.
    And if you go back to 2010 and 2007 and 2008 when the 
regime started to experiment with openness, the reason they did 
that was because they were becoming too dependent on China for 
their own comfort. That was a key driver of the 2010 elections 
and the openness and the freeing of Aung San Suu Kyi and all of 
those things that happened after 2007.
    They are now so desperate to hold onto power, Min Aung 
Hlaing specifically, but also the senior people around him, 
that they have allowed China to come in a way that they have 
never done before.
    Mr. Self. Mr. Ross?
    Mr. Ross. Yes, I agree with Ambassador Currie. I think that 
what China has pursued in Myanmar is enough stability such that 
it can advance its geostrategic and economic interests through 
these mega infrastructure projects but not so much stability 
that it can't wield leverage over all stakeholders involved.
    And right now it has a lot of leverage over both the regime 
and of the ethnic armed groups that are operating on the China-
Myanmar border. And it has positioned itself extremely well and 
at great risk to U.S. interests.
    Mr. Self. So I see that South Korea, India, Myanmar of 
course, and China are all involved in the pipeline project. Is 
there a leverage there by the U.S. on particularly the South 
Korea and India companies? Ambassador?
    Ms. Currie. Yes, sir. POSCO, which is the South Korean 
company, we have quietly tried to shut this down and have 
engaged with the South Koreans about this problem and tried to 
get them to withdraw.
    I think they have reduced their footprint in Burma 
substantially since 2021. But they continue to provide critical 
support.
    Other countries that are allies in the region also continue 
to provide--or participate in the legal economy in Burma and 
provide meaningful support to the regime through that. India is 
a major one.
    India has tried to play the China game of playing both 
sides. They are just not flexible enough to do it and don't 
have the strategic depth that China does to pull it off.
    But the answer there right now, the short term, is to 
encourage India to try to diversify their relationships and not 
be solely dependent on the regime for engaging in Burma and 
protecting their security interests, which they do have genuine 
security problems coming out of Burma. Thank you.
    Mr. Self. It looks to me like if we could put pressure on 
South Korea and India for instance because they provide 
legitimate cover for China in Burma in the pipeline. So if we 
could remove all other international presence, I think it would 
make it more directly apparent that this is a strategic 
defensive move--defense move.
    With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Mrs. Kim. We have a few more minutes so I would like to go 
for second rounds of questioning. And I would like to continue 
on the conversation that my Ranking Member Ami Bera raised 
regarding the ASEAN's role.
    ASEAN's five-point consensus that calls for a ceasing of 
violence, facilitating dialog, and providing humanitarian aid 
remains the bloc's official position. But we have seen little 
progress on implementation. So, is the five-point consensus 
still a viable framework or has it become an obstacle to a more 
concrete action?
    Can you address that Ambassador Currie? And maybe Mr. Ross 
you can address that, too.
    Ms. Currie. The short answer is no. It is not viable. It 
wasn't viable from the minute the ink was dry on it because 
Burma basically violated--the Burma army basically violated it 
from the get-go. And yes, it does need to be replaced with 
something else.
    I think that there is a big divide within ASEAN, the 
countries that can be influenced by China, such as Cambodia and 
Lao continue to block a consensus. Other countries that are 
downstream of problems, Thailand and Malaysia particularly have 
been a little waffly but have tried to do more.
    But ASEAN itself is quite divided. We have allowed 
ourselves to be held captive by the five point consensus and 
allowed it to be the driver of U.S. policy in Burma, which is a 
mistake. We should have our own policy. We should not be 
downstream of ASEAN's dysfunction.
    But we should work with ASEAN to try to strengthen their 
hand in this regard and create pathways for at least individual 
members of ASEAN that want to do something different to do that 
and provide diplomatic engagement with them in ways, whether it 
was with Indonesia and Malaysia or rethinking our approach to 
Thailand on Burma and our approach to Thailand overall, which 
enables this kind of squishy policy that doesn't--it is really 
more a non-policy than a policy. Thank you.
    Mrs. Kim. Can you supplement Ambassador's response with--
maybe you can talk about how the U.S. can be more effective in 
providing the regional response? And I appreciate Ambassador's 
response.
    Mr. Ross. Sure. And just to add that the five point 
consensus, I would say, is the least common denominator. It is 
the baseline, the foundation, for what everyone could agree to 
although since it was agreed, I think it has not been 
effectively implemented. And I think ASEAN admits that.
    One of the challenges, I think, is the turnover in ASEAN 
focus on Myanmar. Every year there is a new special envoy that 
is appointed by the ASEAN chair. The Philippines, the incoming 
chair, has just appointed its new special envoy and that 
prevents a coherent and strategic and long-term approach that 
is needed to a challenge that is not going to be resolved in a 
1-year timeline.
    So I think for the U.S. it is encouraging ASEAN to take on 
this in a way that recognizes the long-term nature of the 
challenge and that ASEAN needs significant support as a bloc to 
be able to effectively address the challenges that Myanmar is 
facing and the impacts that it is having on the region.
    I would just conclude by saying that I agree with 
Ambassador Currie on the divides within ASEAN, particularly 
between mainland and maritime Southeast Asia. And the 
structural impediments of ASEAN's principles of consensus and 
non-interference to them playing a more significant and more 
constructive role in realizing a political solution.
    Mrs. Kim. Thank you.
    I will turn it over to Ranking Member Bera for your 
questions.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Ambassador Currie, you touched on something that in terms 
of the tenuous relationship between the junta and China, are 
there--again the junta does seem to align with China right now 
for survival sake. But that is also, again, a tenuous 
relationship.
    Are there things that we should be thinking about 
strategically in terms of either exploiting that uncomfortable 
relationship or, you know--and we can also follow that up 
offline as well, but.
    Ms. Currie. Well, one of the things that we could do, and I 
will go back to Chairwoman Kim here, we have lost one of our 
best tools for highlighting how problematic this is for the 
Burmese people by shutting down Radio Free Asia and its 
broadcasts into Burma.
    One of the main sources of information we were getting 
about the predations of Chinese industry and Chinese state-
owned businesses and problems arising out of these pipelines 
and these port projects, whether it's, you know, trafficking or 
other huge problems that have come about as a result of these 
Chinese investments in Burma is from Radio Free Asia, also from 
human rights organizations that report on the situation in Shan 
State or in Kachin State where mining projects by Chinese 
state-owned enterprises and Chinese companies are having a 
devastating effect on the local communities.
    Reporting on those things comes from Radio Free Asia and 
from human rights organizations operating on the ground, often 
with U.S. Government support, very quiet, very small, but 
important support.
    And so cutting off that nexus has blinded us and also taken 
away a major vector of information to the Burmese people about 
the problems of this collaboration between the junta and the 
People's Republic of China.
    Mr. Bera. I couldn't agree with you more. I mean, it is one 
of the best vehicles we have in terms of making sure the people 
of Burma understand what is happening in this relationship.
    Let me just ask another quick followup question. You talked 
about one of the challenges within ASEAN is, as leadership 
turns over, new envoys, et cetera. At the start of this 
conflict, you know, I think there was probably a hope that it 
wouldn't be a long-term conflict. I think we have to think 
about it differently now.
    You know, this isn't going to wrap up in a year and what 
does a longer term engagement, whether, you know, we have our 
special envoy, whether it's through the United Nations and us 
and folks that can work on this over a longer period, and then 
also can imagine what happens post-conflict. Would that be the 
right way for us to start thinking about this? Not as a short-
term thing, but long term and the conflict, find the cease-
fire. What's the path forward?
    Mr. Ross. I can start on that. Thanks for the question. I 
would say that since the coup in 2021, we have had a bit of a 
piecemeal approach in terms of U.S. strategy. And I think that 
a really thorough look at what U.S. policy and strategy toward 
Myanmar should be is necessary.
    I understand there is a policy review underway in the State 
Department. But that is something that I think has been lacking 
for the last four plus years and would serve U.S. interests 
well to be able to develop something that is more coherent and 
strategic over the medium term.
    Mr. Bera. We should do that in concert with our ASEAN 
partners.
    Mr. Ross. Yes.
    Mr. Bera. Great. With that----
    Ms. Currie. If I can answer, Burma policy has been under 
review since the administration came in. And during the Biden 
Administration, it was completely adrift. You were being too 
diplomatic, I think, Mr. Ross, in calling it incoherent. It was 
adrift.
    We coopted to the least common denominator of the five 
point consensus and took some piecemeal actions.
    I think that there are things we can do, low cost 
solutions. We do need to--the review is important. But it is 
not going to matter if we have lost all of the tools or 
eviscerated all of the tools we have to actually implement a 
coherent policy.
    And then I would also add that, again, I talk about 
Thailand a lot when it comes to Burma because for decades now, 
for some time now, we have not had a Burma policy to speak of. 
We have a Thailand policy that consists of doing whatever will 
keep us in good standing with the most regressive elements of 
the Thai leadership.
    Thailand is changing. We need to rethink our strategy on 
Thailand and then think about our strategy on Burma in a 
partnership with that strategy on Thailand and how those two 
things lock together for success.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you.
    Mrs. Kim. A very good point. Chairman Huizenga for your 
questions.
    Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I am going to 
make a quick statement, and I am going to give you each about a 
minute and a half. Okay?
    So, I am not trying to be rude. I am trying to make sure I 
hit it all. I want to hear from all of you.
    I couldn't agree with you more, Ambassador Currie. We need 
a coherent policy. We got virtually nothing out of the last 
administration when we would push them, whether it was Blinken 
in front of us or whether it was the administration. I am 
pushing to make sure this administration doesn't make the same 
mistake. And so, they have got an opportunity. My message to 
them is to seize it. We need to do that.
    Ms. Karim, I would like to know from you, we have got a 
number of these initiatives that have been going on. But I am 
curious to know from your view on the ground, how has the 
interim caretaker government's treatment, the current 
Bangladesh government, how has their treatment of the Rohingya 
refugees differed from the previous government's?
    Ms. Karim. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think--well, I also 
want to make it clear that Bangladesh itself is going through a 
huge political transition given that the Prime Minister has now 
been kicked out of the country and the new interim government.
    But to be--frankly, we haven't seen any much larger policy 
change yet since the interim government in terms of refugee 
response in the camps.
    There has been lots of improvement, including 
transportation, the very basic across the board level 
improvement in the camps. But we haven't seen much policy 
change yet from the capital.
    So I think in terms of responding, Bangladesh itself, what 
we would like to see from them and have not seen yet, would be 
allowing refugees to work in the camps. And I would echo 
Ambassador Currie on these. Refugees want to work, of course, 
and it is not only----
    Mr. Huizenga. Be self-sufficient.
    Ms. Karim [continuing]. to help their families, yes, 
correct. And it will also prepare refugees for their return 
back to home so we don't have to keep coming back and forth----
    Mr. Huizenga. Okay.
    Ms. Karim [continuing]. to Bangladesh over and over again.
    Mr. Huizenga. Great. I am going to stick to my admonition 
here. I have got 3 minutes.
    Mr. Ross, the October military junta raid on online scam 
centers in non-junta controlled Eastern Burma, it seized 
Starlink satellite devices. What does the operation reveal 
about the junta's relationship with scam operations? Is it 
generally cracking down or selectively targeting operations 
outside of its control while protecting those that benefit the 
regime?
    Mr. Ross. Thank you for the question. I think this is 
purely a performative act. The Myanmar military and the border 
guard forces that control the areas where the scam centers are 
operated from are very closely intertwined and there are strong 
personal linkages, financial linkages that extend quite deep on 
both sides.
    So the intent behind this, I think--I think we need to link 
it to the elections. It is an effort by the military to--and 
its allies in the border guard forces to give the impression 
that it is cracking down ahead of elections but without the 
substance behind it to actually demonstrate that it is cracking 
down.
    So there is a new crackdown that has been happening this 
week against one of the other scam centers called Shwe Kokko 
and information in the public domain suggests that several 
thousand people were notified in advance that this crackdown 
would happen so the leadership----
    Mr. Huizenga. Basically, what you do on raid, right?
    Mr. Ross. Leadership was able to flee and perhaps, you 
know, evidence, materials, other things that would be of 
interest were squirreled away to other scam centers that 
continue to operate. So it is a purely performative measure.
    Again, the areas where these scams are taking place are 
intricately linked to the military itself and operate with the 
acquiescence of the military.
    Mr. Huizenga. Okay. Ambassador Currie, do you agree and 
what can we do to encourage or actually verify that those 
crackdowns are effective?
    Ms. Currie. Well, there is not a lot we can do inside Burma 
to do that because the regime is--I 100 percent agree with 
everything that Mr. Ross said about the performative nature of 
these.
    They do this with drug seizures too where it is Kabuki 
Theatre. They warn the kingpins in advance, and the important 
people are gone. There is always a scapegoat of people who are 
arrested, and drugs that are burned and, in this case, things 
that are seized. But it is always very performative.
    I think that, again, money, it is about money. We have got 
to find better ways to cutoff the flows of financing in and out 
of these regimes and in and out of these scam centers. That is 
the key.
    Treasury needs to have a dedicated set of resources to this 
problem and really, like, put some people on it and do it 
immediately. It is costing Americans money and lives. And it is 
enabling a whole ecosystem of criminality that is endangering 
us, our allies, and the future of Burma. Thank you.
    Mr. Huizenga. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back and 
thank you very much again, all three of you.
    Mrs. Kim. With that, I also want to thank all of our 
witnesses for joining us today and providing wonderful, 
wonderful, and very powerful testimony.
    I know the intent of our hearing was to eliminate the 
prominent source of regional instability and talk about ways 
that we can come up with some foreign policy opportunity for 
the United States.
    Through the Q&A sessions, I think we were able to glean a 
lot of those opportunities, so we are going to continue to have 
this conversation with you. And I want to thank all of the 
members that participated in this session.
    And the members of the subcommittee may have some 
additional questions for you. So we will ask you to respond to 
those in writing.
    So, pursuant to our committee rules, all members may have 5 
days to submit statements, questions, extraneous materials for 
the record subject to the length limitations.
    So, without objection, this committee now stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]


                                APPENDIX

                              ----------                              


               Material Submitted for the Hearing Record


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]