[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 45 (Friday, April 2, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E527-E528]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   CONGRESSIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CAUCUS (CHRC) BRIEFING ON PROPOSED UN 
  CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: STATEMENT BY 
                 CHRC CO-CHAIR, CONGRESSMAN TOM LANTOS

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, April 2, 2004

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on March 30th, the Congressional Human 
Rights Caucus held a groundbreaking Members Briefing entitled, 
``International Disability Rights: The Proposed UN Convention.'' This 
discussion of the global situation of people with disabilities was 
intended to help establish disability rights issues as an integral part 
of the general human rights discourse. The briefing brought together 
the human rights community and the disability rights community, and it 
raised awareness in Congress of the need to protect disability rights 
under international law to the same extent as other human rights 
through a binding UN convention on the rights of people with 
disabilities.
  The Caucus welcomed as expert witnesses Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
State Mark P. Lagon; the Permanent Representative of the Republic of 
Ecuador to the United Nations, Ambassador Luis Gallegos; the United 
Nations Director of the Division for Social Policy and Development in 
the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Johan Scholvinck; the 
distinguished former Attorney General of the United States, former 
Under-Secretary General of the United Nations and former Governor of 
Pennsylvania, the Honorable Dick Thornburgh; the President of the 
National Organization on Disability (NOD), Alan A. Reich; Kathy 
Martinez, a member of the National Council on Disabilities (NCD); and a 
representative of the United States International Council on 
Disabilities (USCID) and Executive Director of Mental Disability Rights 
International, Eric Rosenthal. I intend to place their important 
statements in the Congressional Record, so that all of my colleagues 
may profit from their expertise, and I ask that my own statement at the 
briefing be placed at this point of the Congressional Record.

       Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to welcome 
     you to today's Congressional Human Rights Caucus Briefing on 
     international disability rights and the proposed UN 
     Convention.
       I would like to thank the Co-Chair of the Bipartisan 
     Disabilities Caucus, James Langevin, as well as my good 
     friends Peter King, Betty McCollum, Jim Moran and Jim Cooper 
     for attending this important briefing. We all owe a special 
     thanks to our former colleague, the former Chairman of the 
     House International Relations Committee, Benjamin Gilman, for 
     his active participation in this briefing. His support for 
     this noble cause is invaluable.
       This is the first time that the Congressional Human Rights 
     Caucus has held a briefing on international disability 
     rights. While I am very pleased that the Caucus is holding 
     this groundbreaking briefing today, the mere fact that this 
     is the first of its kind highlights an important shortcoming 
     of the work of the human rights community, which, so far, 
     has largely been absent in its support for the disability 
     community.
       Ladies and gentlemen, an estimated 600 million people in 
     the world have a disability of various types and degrees. The 
     day-to-day life of 25 percent of the world's population is 
     affected by disability--affecting entire families, not just 
     individuals. 80 percent of the world's people with a 
     disability live in developing countries, where only 1 percent 
     to 2 percent have access to the necessary rehabilitation 
     services. The majority of an estimated 150 million children 
     with disabilities worldwide remain deprived of learning 
     opportunities. Only 2 percent of children who have 
     disabilities in developing countries are attending schools or 
     have access to rehabilitation facilities.
       These facts only begin to describe the global disparities 
     in the living conditions of persons with disabilities. 
     According to the recent State Department's Country Reports on 
     Human Rights Practices, in the People's Republic of China, 
     some protection laws were passed and attention to disability 
     issues raised, particularly in light of the upcoming Special 
     Olympics in 2007. However, a wide gap exists between 
     protection laws and the practical implementation. 
     Additionally, some remaining legal provisions outrightly 
     contradict those protection laws. The Maternal and Child 
     Health Care Law prohibits the marriage of persons with 
     certain specified contagious diseases or certain acute mental 
     illnesses. If doctors find that a couple is at risk of 
     transmitting disabling congenital defects to their children, 
     the couple may marry only if they agree to use birth control 
     or undergo sterilization. Doctors frequently force parents of 
     children with disabilities to place those children in state-
     run institutions, which cannot provide adequate 
     rehabilitation. Government statistics showed that almost one-
     quarter of the approximately 60 million persons with 
     disabilities live in extreme poverty. The Higher Education 
     Law enables universities to legally exclude disabled 
     candidates for higher education. Other countries also have 
     codified laws to prevent discrimination against persons with 
     disabilities, but fail to implement them. Traditional myths 
     and misconceptions further compound harsh living conditions 
     for people with disabilities. For example, in Zimbabwe 
     according to traditional beliefs, persons with disabilities 
     are considered bewitched, and reports of children with 
     disabilities being hidden when visitors arrive are common.
       In response to the existing global discrepancies, the UN 
     set non-binding standards in 1993 through the United Nations 
     Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for 
     Persons with Disabilities (UN res48/96). To further 
     strengthen international standards, the General Assembly 
     established an Ad Hoc Committee in 2001, which is charged 
     with the drafting of a Comprehensive and Integral 
     International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of 
     the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities. The Ad 
     Hoc Committee is chaired by Ambassador Luis Gallegos, whom we 
     welcome today to this briefing. Currently, 27 countries and 
     12 representatives of NGOs participate in a working group, 
     which is considering draft proposals for such a convention, 
     and which reports to the Ad Hoc Committee.
       Unfortunately, some critics have come forward and spoken 
     out against this noble effort, characterizing it as either 
     needless, naive, or too complex for an international 
     solution. Arguments such as: ``Are we really going to tell 
     the poorest countries of the world that they now have to 
     build ramps for people in wheelchairs, when they barely can 
     feed their citizens?'' do not only miss the purpose of a 
     Convention, but also do not recognize the realities on the 
     ground.
       To address the latter point on the practical implications 
     first, I am fully convinced that poor and developing 
     countries can only move forward in their development if they 
     include

[[Page E528]]

     people with disabilities. It is impossible to feed a starving 
     population on the ground with food donations when, as I have 
     mentioned earlier, a significant number of people in the 
     developing world have a disability, and cannot even reach 
     this food aid. International Donor countries could have 
     hardly intended to provide food aid so we all can witness 
     scenes on television reminiscent of Darwin's ``Survival of 
     the Fittest,'' where only the strong survive. The same is 
     true for any economic development. If significant numbers of 
     people are excluded from any development and opportunities in 
     a country, we can expect their dependence on international 
     aid to continue. Furthermore, how can persons who are deaf or 
     blind ever benefit from significant efforts in the global 
     fight against HIV/AIDS, if they cannot be part of any 
     education campaign, an issue recently addressed in a New York 
     Times article from Sunday, March 28th? The United States can 
     hardly change the infrastructure of a country over night. Nor 
     can we do it alone, we need the international community 
     and encourage all nations to move forward with our 
     guidance and support.
       Critics also miss the point of what the purpose of the 
     proposed Convention really is. The most important role of the 
     proposed convention is the elevation of disability rights to 
     the highest level of international law. Only if we can 
     establish an internationally verifiable consensus on what 
     disability rights are and through what mechanisms they can be 
     achieved, can we expect to make them part of a meaningful 
     international dialogue. This is exactly the purpose of other 
     UN human rights instruments the US has not only entered into, 
     but helped bring into existence, most notably the Universal 
     Declaration of Human Rights, which has become part of 
     customary international law. This convention most certainly 
     is not a ``silver bullet'' for all disability rights problems 
     everywhere, nor does it change the situation in a country 
     over night, only because it has become a party to this 
     treaty. It also does not serve to ``threaten'' developing 
     countries with the overnight implementation of unachievable 
     goals and standards, but to offer an opportunity for a 
     country to commit itself to a verifiable journey toward 
     standards, which are the result of an international 
     agreement. I think it behooves the United States to let other 
     countries benefit from our expertise and the standards we 
     have achieved, most notably in the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act. We are undoubtedly the leading nation on 
     disability rights, and we are the sole remaining superpower. 
     This unique position realistically means that we can either 
     provide active leadership toward passage of such a document, 
     ensuring that it gains international credibility, or we can 
     stand aside. Therefore, I was disappointed by the remarks of 
     former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Ralph 
     Boyd, before the Ad Hoc Committee on June 18, 2003. In his 
     remarks, Assistant Attorney General Boyd, recognized that 
     ``Unfortunately, persons with disabilities have too often 
     been the targets of improper discrimination . . .'' and 
     continues that: ``. . . the activism and attention of UN 
     Member States brings hope that one day they will be 
     seamlessly integrated into the societies in which they 
     live.'' Interestingly enough, the U.S. does not seem to be 
     one of those states infected with ``activism and attention,'' 
     as he points out that--while the US has a lot of experience, 
     and other countries are more than welcome to learn from us--
     we do so considering our ``comprehensive domestic laws 
     protecting those with disabilities, not with the expectation 
     that we will become party to any resulting legal 
     instrument.''
       We have invited the Department of Justice to participate in 
     today's briefing, but the Department declined our invitation 
     yesterday. I find it very curious that the Department of 
     Justice speaks at the United Nations about these issues, but 
     has nobody available to share their position with Members of 
     Congress at this briefing today.
       I, and all of my colleagues on the International Relations 
     Committee, strongly disagreed with the position expressed by 
     former Assistant Attorney General Boyd when we passed 
     unanimously H. Con. Res. 169, a bill I have introduced in 
     strong support of a UN Convention. I seriously hope that the 
     Administration is reconsidering its position, and I call on 
     the House Leadership to schedule my legislation as soon as 
     possible, so that the Full House and the Senate can go on 
     record in calling for an international convention before the 
     next working group meeting in May. We also need to bring the 
     complete resources of the U.S. Government to help in 
     addressing the problems of people with disabilities abroad. 
     That is why Frank Wolf and I introduced H.R. 1462, the 
     International Disabilities and Victims of Civil Strife and 
     Warfare Assistance Act, and we hope to see legislative action 
     on that initiative soon.
       We should be the engine of this effort, not the breaks.
       Apart from our moral obligations as the richest and most 
     powerful nation on this planet, the United States also stands 
     to benefit directly from such efforts. First, only equal and 
     full participation of all groups of society in all aspects of 
     life can guarantee a stable country, and a strong democracy. 
     I do not need to discuss this in great detail, as the spread 
     of democracy around the globe has long been the foremost 
     foreign policy goal of the United States. A leadership role 
     in the field of international disability rights will 
     significantly impact the positive perception of the United 
     States globally. Second, in an increasingly global economy, 
     American companies have to be global actors to be 
     competitive. Maybe the critics of a strong US leadership role 
     on this issue can explain to us how American citizens with 
     disabilities will participate in those global opportunities, 
     and the career chances they present, if persons with 
     disabilities would not even be able to get to a branch office 
     of their company in El Salvador, Rwanda, Vietnam or--let's 
     say, Uzbekistan?
       As you are aware, the US government recently made 
     fundamental changes in the way we will consider foreign aid. 
     The Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-199) 
     established the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and 
     clearly proscribes in Sec. 607(b)(1)(B) as one criteria for a 
     country's eligibility for funds through the Millennium 
     Challenge Account the `` respect [for] human and civil 
     rights, including the rights of people with disabilities.'' 
     According to our legislation, ``Such determination shall be 
     based, to the maximum extent possible, upon objective and 
     quantifiable indicators of a country's demonstrated 
     commitment to the criteria in subsection (b), and shall, 
     where appropriate, take into account and assess the role of 
     women and girls.''
       The legislative intent is clear, the implementation is not. 
     According to the MCC's Report on the Criteria and Methodology 
     for Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries for 
     Millennium Challenge Account Assistance in FY 2004, the 
     disability rights criteria will largely be determined by the 
     findings of the State Department's Human Rights Report. 
     Unfortunately, the Country Reports vary widely in 
     comprehensiveness and quality on this issue, precisely 
     because of the absence of recognized international standards, 
     which we have for other human rights issues. Clearly, only 
     global and enforceable disability rights standards which have 
     become part of accepted international law by UN Member 
     Countries through a UN Convention can provide us with 
     appropriate reporting criteria, so that an objective 
     determination can be made.

                          ____________________