Nomination of Pamela Harris to Be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Curcuit

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, yesterday Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel wrote to the majority leader seeking $225 million in additional U.S. funding for the production of Iron Dome components in Israel so they can maintain adequate stockpiles and defend their population. Republicans are united in support of our ally Israel. We have legislation that would allow Congress to meet the Secretary's request, and we hope our friends on the other side will join us in coming to a sensible, bipartisan solution that can be passed quickly.

As most Senators know, the Iron Dome missile defense system has played a critical role in defending Israel's population from rocket attacks launched by Hamas from within the Gaza Strip.

While our friends in Egypt are working to bring Hamas to a cease-fire and end this mirage of rocket attacks--attacks that indiscriminately target the civilian population of Israel--the Iron Dome system will remain critical to Israel's security until a true cease-fire is achieved. It will remain vital afterwards as well, because this defensive system helps blunt the impact of one of Hamas's preferred tools of terror.

By passing a bipartisan measure to meet the Secretary's request, we can send a message to Hamas that its terrorist tactics and its attempts to terrorize Israel's populace will not succeed. And we can help Israel defend its civilian population against indiscriminate attacks as it continues its campaign--Operation Protective Edge--to destroy the often Iranian-supplied weapons stockpiled within Gaza, as well as to eliminate the tunnels that allow terrorists to infiltrate into Israel and smuggle arms into Gaza.

BURMA

Now, on a different matter in a different part of the world. For more than two decades I have been coming to the Senate floor to discuss the latest events in Burma. Typically, in the spring, I would introduce legislation to renew the import sanctions on the then-Burmese junta contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. In addition to pressuring the junta, the annual renewal of the import sanctions provided a useful forum to focus public attention on Burma.

After much deliberation, last summer Members of Congress chose not to renew these sanctions for another year as Burma had demonstrated progress toward implementing governmental reform. That said, Burma's path to reform is far from complete. Much work remains to be done. As such, it is important to continue focusing attention on the country in a regular fashion. That is what I wish to do today, to highlight an important, immediate, intuitive step that the country can take to reassure those who wish the country well, that it remains on the path to reform.

In many ways the Burma of 2014 scarcely resembles the nation that existed in 2003 when Congress first enacted the BFDA against the Burmese junta. Beginning about 3 years ago, Burma began to make significant strides forward in several key areas.

Under President U Thein Sein, the Burmese Government began to institute reforms that surprised virtually all of the onlookers. In the following years, the government granted numerous amnesties and political pardons to political prisoners and has released more than 1,100 political prisoners to date.

As a result of the new government's actions, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, was released from house arrest after spending 15--15--of the previous 21 years in detention. Since her release from House arrest, Daw Suu has been permitted to travel abroad. Moreover, a by-election was held in April 2012 and she was elected as a member of Parliament along with a number of her National League for Democracy colleagues. In fact, when she did travel abroad back in 2012, at my invitation she came to Louisville, KY. It was an incredible experience to have her in our State and in our country.

In light of these democratic reforms--many of which I witnessed firsthand when I visited the country in January of 2012--I believe that to no small degree Burma has been a remarkable story among many dark developments in the world today.

However, even though the country has made incredible progress in a relatively short period of time, to many Burma of late appears stalled amidst a score of pressing challenges. These include continued conflict between the government and ethnic minorities, governmental restrictions on civil liberties, and ongoing humanitarian issues in Rakhine State. All are serious concerns that command close attention. And related to all of these issues is the need for Burma to continue to bring the military under civilian control if it is to evolve into a more representative government.

With the by-election in Burma scheduled for late this year and a parliamentary election scheduled for late 2015, reformers in the Burmese Government have an opportunity to regain their momentum. To my view, the time between now and the end of 2015 is pivotal--pivotal--for Burma. The elections will help demonstrate whether the country will
continue on the reformist path.

With that in mind, the Burmese Government should understand that the United States, and the Senate specifically, will watch very closely at how Burmese authorities conduct the 2015 parliamentary elections as a critical marker of the sincerity and the sustainability of democratic reform in Burma.

President U Thein Sein has made public assurances that the upcoming parliamentary election will be ``free and transparent.'' However, his pledge has already been challenged by several campaign restrictions.

One of those restrictions is a simple one. It involves who can be chosen for the most important civilian office in Burma: The Presidency.

Burma has several requirements governing who can hold this highest office. Some of them make sense. For instance, like the United States, Burma has a minimum age requirement for its highest office. Its President must be at least 45 years old. I suppose that helps assure that only someone with a fair amount of life experience can be President.

In addition, the Burmese constitution stipulates that the President must be a citizen who is ``well acquainted'' with the country's ``political, administrative, economic, and military'' affairs, and is ``loyal to the union and its citizens.'' This requirement helps ensure that a president is knowledgeable about public affairs and has a vested interest in serving in Burma's executive office.

However, Burma's constitution also includes a deeply disconcerting limitation on Presidential eligibility. Section 59 stipulates that the Burmese President may not be a foreign national and may not have any immediate family members who are foreign nationals.

This limitation on the home nation of a candidate's immediate family has no bearing on an individual's fitness for office. This restriction prevents many, including Daw Suu herself, from even being considered for Burma's highest office. Daw Suu, for example, would not be permitted to run because her deceased husband was, and her two sons are, British nationals. To think that the nationalities of family members have relevance for fitness to hold office or allegiance to Burma is dubious at best.

Not only is Daw Suu discriminated against but so are the Burmese who fled or were exiled from the country during the junta's rule. Many of them
were out of Burma for years--not by choice, I would add--and during this time many became naturalized citizens in another country out of necessity. These men and women are also ineligible to be President.

Deciding who will be the next Burmese President is obviously up to the people of Burma through their elected representatives and not up to the international community. But, at a minimum, I believe that otherwise qualified candidates should be permitted to stand for office.

More important than the provision's unfairness for certain Presidential candidates is that this provision restricts the ability of the people of Burma, through their representatives, to have a choice in who can hold their highest office. This is profoundly undemocratic, and it is profoundly undemocratic at a time when Burma's commitment to democracy is actually open to question.

It is notable that one apparent roadblock to amending the Presidential eligibility requirement is the fact that the military holds de facto veto power over constitutional amendments. Under the constitution, the military controls a block of 25 percent of the parliamentary seats and in excess of a 75-percent vote is required for a constitutional amendment to go forward. The military controls 25 percent of the Parliament; they need over 75 percent of the Parliament to change the constitution. It becomes clear what this is about.

I understand the Burmese parliamentary committee is in the process of finalizing plans for the implementation of constitutional reform, but I am concerned that eligibility changes will apparently not--not--include amending the narrow restrictions of the constitution that limit who can run for President. To me, it will be a missed opportunity if this provision is not revisited before the 2015 parliamentary elections.

Modifying this provision is one way the Burmese Government can display to the world, in an immediate and clearly recognizable way, that it remains fully committed to reform. Permitting a broad array of candidates to run for President is an unmistakable symbol to the world--even to those who do not follow Burma closely--that Burmese reformers actually mean business; otherwise, such

a restriction will quite simply cast a pall over the legitimacy of the election in the eyes of the international community and certainly to Members of the U.S. Senate.

While Congress did not renew the BFDA's import ban last year and there is little appetite to renew the measure this year, several U.S. sanctions toward Burma remain on the books. They include restrictions on the importation of jade and rubies into the United States and sanctions on individuals who continue to hinder reform efforts. It is hard to see how those provisions get lifted without there being progress on the constitutional eligibility issue and the closely related issue of the legitimacy of the 2015 elections.

As the 2015 elections approach, I urge the country's leadership--its President, Parliament and military--to remain resolute in confronting the considerable obstacles to a more representative government that Burma faces. That is the only way the existing sanctions are going to get removed--the only way.

I wanted to highlight the eligibility issue as an example of an important step Burma could take to continue its reformist momentum. Such a step is of course necessary but not sufficient. As I noted, undergirding many of Burma's problems is the need to enhance civilian control over the military. This concern manifests itself in many ways, including the need to clarify that the commander in chief serves under the President and the importance of removing the military's de facto veto authority over constitutional amendments.

One tool the United States could use to help reform Burma's armed forces is through military-to-military contacts. I believe that exposure to the most professional military in the world--our own--will help Burma develop a force that is responsive to civilian control and to professional standards. Security assistance and professional military education are not simply rewards to partnering countries, as some view such programs. They are tools with which we advance our foreign policy objectives. Helping the Burmese military to reform is in our interest but it cannot be done through mere exhortation; it needs to be done through training and regular contact with the highest professional military standards. Only then, I believe, will the Burmese military see that being under civilian control is not--not--inimical to its interests.

This realization by the Burmese military, coupled with a successful 2015 election that is open to all otherwise qualified Presidential aspirants, will greatly enhance the cause for reform and peaceful reconciliation in Burma.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source