[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 154 (Tuesday, December 4, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7365-S7379]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


         CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will proceed to 
executive session to consider the following treaty, which the clerk 
will now report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Treaty Document No. 112-7, Convention on the Rights of 
     Persons with Disabilities.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 12 noon will be equally divided.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are now, as everybody knows, on the 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It is my 
understanding that we have about 48 minutes for each side. I would ask 
the opponents of the treaty to do what we normally do, which is go back 
and forth from one side to the other. I notice there is no one here for 
the other side, so what we will do is use up a component of our time, 
and then, because they are not here, I think it would be fair not to 
chew up the time in a quorum call.
  So I ask unanimous consent that if the opponents on the other side 
are not ready to speak or to use their time, that the quorum call be 
charged against them because I don't think we should give up our time 
as a result of their simply not being here. So I ask unanimous consent 
that if there is a quorum and we are not speaking, the time be charged 
to their side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. LUGAR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I believe 
the chairman has stated a fair position. On the other hand, in terms of 
our side, the Republican side, I wish to preserve at least the rights 
of our Members to have the maximum amount of time as possible. So I am 
inclined to believe the time should be charged equally against both 
sides.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, that is fine. I accept that. What I am 
trying to do is to use this debate period, important as it is, as 
effectively as possible on both sides.
  I see there is a Member from the other side who is in opposition, so 
I withdraw my request, and I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Indiana.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, may I ask what we just decided in terms of 
time?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would inform the Senator from Oklahoma 
that we have agreed to simply proceed, hopefully alternating from side 
to side. We have about 48 minutes on each side, and I have yielded 10 
minutes to the Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the quorum calls 
will be equally divided between the sides.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, as we all now know, the Senate will vote 
today on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The 
United States has long been a leader in its treatment of those with 
disabilities. Becoming a party to the convention would provide an 
important platform and forum for the United States to continue this 
leadership.
  We received strong expressions of support for the convention from a 
wide

[[Page S7366]]

range of groups who advocate on behalf of the disabled. This includes 
numerous veterans organizations representing those who have become 
disabled while serving our country in the Armed Forces.
  An important factor in my decision to support the convention has been 
the testimony received by the Foreign Relations Committee that joining 
the convention will not require any change--and I emphasize that: will 
not require any change--in existing U.S. law or policies regarding 
treatment of the disabled.
  In their statements before the Foreign Relations Committee, officials 
from the executive branch as well as former Attorney General Richard 
Thornburgh stressed that current U.S. law satisfies all obligations the 
United States would assume in joining the convention.
  In order to underscore the importance of this point, the Foreign 
Relations Committee specifically addressed it in a declaration in the 
resolution of advice and consent. The declaration formulated by the 
Foreign Relations Committee reads as follows:

       The Senate declares that, in view of the reservations to be 
     included in the instrument of ratification, current United 
     States law fulfills or exceeds the obligations of the 
     Convention for the United States of America.

  On a related point, the resolution of advice and consent also 
underscores that the convention will not be self-executing in U.S. law. 
This means its provisions are not directly enforceable in U.S. courts 
and do not confer private rights of action enforceable in the United 
States.
  These provisions of the resolution of advice and consent establish 
important parameters for U.S. accession to the convention. They give 
effect to the intent of the Senate that joining the convention will not 
require any changes in U.S. laws and policies with regard to the 
disabled, either now or in the future, and will not provide a basis for 
lawsuits in U.S. courts. Such matters will continue to be governed 
solely by U.S. laws.
  It is my hope these provisions in the resolution of advice and 
consent will provide assurance to Members who may be concerned that 
joining the convention could somehow confer new rights on disabled 
persons in particular areas or that the convention can be used to 
require the United States to change its laws or policies with respect 
to the disabled. With these provisions, the United States can join the 
convention as an expression of our leadership on disability rights 
without ceding any of our ability to decide for ourselves how best to 
address those issues in our laws.
  The United States can play an important leadership role in helping 
countries around the world identify ways to expand opportunities for 
the disabled. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting United 
States accession to the convention as a means of advancing this goal.
  I would point out that many of us have visited with veterans--
disabled veterans, as a matter of fact--in the corridors of the Capitol 
in the last 24 hours. They have expressed without reservation the fact 
that their lives would be enhanced in the event we were able to pass 
this treaty, because their treatment in other countries would improve 
as other countries adopt principles we have found useful as a practical 
means of helping the disabled.
  I believe each one of us ought to be moved by the testimony of our 
veterans--veterans I have seen here in the corridors who have lost legs 
during fights on behalf of the United States of America. This is a 
serious issue and a humanitarian, thoughtful way. And I emphasize again 
and again, the United States joins with other countries, sharing our 
experiences of how we can improve treatment of the handicapped, with no 
possible provision in the treaty--and we have reserved this 
completely--that there could be any change in our laws.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to make sure people understand 
there are different thoughts on this convention. It seems as though 
most of the time when the U.N. conventions or treaties come up that I 
have been opposed to them, and my concern always has been that of 
sovereignty. I do oppose the United Nations Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities because I think it does infringe upon our 
sovereignty, establishing an unelected United Nations bureaucratic body 
called the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and a 
Conference of State Parties. These unelected bureaucratic bodies would 
implement the treaty and pass so-called recommendations that would be 
forced upon the United Nations and the United States if the United 
States is a signatory.
  We already have the 1980 act. We all remember that. We went through 
that a few years ago. I was here at that time. It is considered to be 
the gold standard for the disabled. We don't need the United Nations 
bureaucrats changing it in our country in the name of worldwide 
advocation.
  While the Obama administration affirms that no changes to the Federal 
or State law will be necessary if the CRPD is ratified, the CRPD can be 
amended. The Senator from Indiana talked about the fact that there are 
no changes in this. But it can be amended by the bureaucrats and, 
therefore, require changes to U.S. law.
  Further, the ability of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities to investigate and recommend changes chips away at the 
ability of a sovereign nation in governing itself.
  I know a lot of people feel that no idea is a good idea unless it 
comes from an international organization. I kind of fall at the other 
end of the spectrum. Specifically, the treaty could be used to 
interfere with the ability of parents with disabled children to decide 
what action is in the best interest of their children. This would 
especially affect those parents who homeschool their children.
  I have a daughter--the runt of my litter, I say to the president--who 
is No. 4. Katie homeschools her children. She and I have talked about 
this, and this is very much a concern in that community, that unelected 
foreign bureaucrats--not parents--would decide what is in the best 
interests of the disabled child even in the home. No less than 40 
organizations and tens of thousands of parents who advocate children 
and parental rights have written us, and me, specifically opposing the 
treaty.
  The Home Schooling Legal Defense Fund writes:

       Article 7 of this treaty establishes the ``best interests 
     of the child'' legal standard, which would override the 
     traditional fundamental rights of parents to direct the 
     education and upbringing of their child with special needs.

  This could result in forcibly transferring a disabled child from the 
home to government-run schools if these unelected, unaccountable 
bureaucrats deem it necessary, even if the Senate puts reservations 
into this treaty.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters, 
one from the HSLDA and one from the Concerned Women of America.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       Concerned Women for America


                                 Legislative Action Committee,

                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 2012.
     The Honorable,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator, On behalf of Concerned Women for America 
     Legislative Action Committee's (CWALAC) over 500,000 members, 
     I urge you to reject ratification of the United Nations' 
     Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
       CRPD is a feel-good attempt at limiting liberty for the 
     United States abroad and at home. This treaty will hurt 
     parents and caregivers of people with disabilities by 
     subjecting them to UN oversight, regulations, and control. In 
     doing this, a judge or other government official would be 
     able to trump the parent's wishes when it comes to education 
     of their child with disabilities.
       While CWALAC is for protecting those with disabilities, 
     Americans should be the ones making laws for America. If 
     improvements are needed to the laws, that already are the 
     leading examples of providing freedom and justice for persons 
     with disabilities, it needs to be done within America's 
     legislature. Like other United Nation treaties, this will 
     open the door for infringing upon our sovereignty by 
     subjecting the United States to foreign, anti-American 
     biases.

[[Page S7367]]

       Parents know what is in the best interest of their child, 
     not the government or the United Nations.
       CWALAC will include a vote against this treaty on our 
     scorecard for the 112th Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                Penny Young Nance,
     Chief Executive Officer and President.
                                  ____

                                                            HSLDA,


                                  Advocates for Homeschooling,

                                                November 20, 2012.
     Re Please Oppose the UN CRPD.

       Honorable Senator: We the below-signed leaders from forty 
     national organizations represent millions of Americans. We 
     respectfully urge the United States Senate to reject 
     ratification of the United Nations' Convention on the Rights 
     of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
       We are troubled that article 7 of this treaty, in 
     establishing the ``best interests of the child'' legal 
     standard, would override the traditional fundamental right of 
     parents to direct the education and upbringing of their child 
     with special needs.
       We are troubled that such a reduction in legal protection 
     in cases of children with disabilities will create an 
     atmosphere discriminatory against those children and their 
     families.
       We are troubled that New Zealand's Education Act of 1989, 
     which has been held to conform to the CRPD, allows the 
     Secretary of Education to force any child with special needs 
     into government-run schools ``if the Secretary thinks [the 
     student] would be better off.'' This transfers the right to 
     direct a child's education from fit and loving parents to an 
     officer of the State, in contravention of American tradition 
     and the International Declaration of Human Rights. Yet it 
     accords with this treaty.
       We are troubled that accession to this treaty, despite 
     assurances to the contrary, will lead to legal action against 
     private individuals, as seen in the 2011 case of Bond v. 
     United States. In this case, a woman was found guilty of 
     violating the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, 
     a federal law over a matter formerly of state jurisdiction, 
     which was adopted as a direct result of the eponymous treaty.
       We are troubled that accession to this treaty would place 
     our nation under the scrutiny and review of an international 
     committee unelected by the American people, thus violating 
     the vital principle of American self-government.
       For these and other reasons, we urge you: please vote 
     against any effort to ratify the CRPD.
           Sincerely,
         Michael P. Farris President, ParentalRights.org; Phyllis 
           Schlafly, Founder and President, Eag1e Forum; Dr. 
           Richard Land, President, Ethics & Religious Liberty 
           Commission, Southern Baptist Convention; Morton 
           Blackwell, Chairman, The Weyrich Lunch; Tom McCluslry, 
           Senior Vice President, Family Research Council Action; 
           Tom Minnery, Executive Director, CitizenLink; Penny 
           Young Nance, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
           Concerned Women for America; Matt Staver, Founder and 
           Chairman, Liberty Counsel; Erick Erickson, Editor, 
           RedState.com; Mike Needham, Chief Executive Officer, 
           Heritage Action for America; Austin Ruse, President, 
           Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM); 
           William J. Murray, Chairman, Religious Freedom 
           Coalition; Jim Backlin, Vice President for Legislative 
           Affairs, Christian Coalition of America; Gary A. Marx, 
           Executive Director, Faith and Freedom Coalition; Al 
           Cardenas, Chairman, American Conservative Union; J. 
           Michael Smith, President, Home School Legal Defense 
           Association; Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, 
           Beverly LaHaye Institute; Deryl Edwards, President, 
           Liberty Counsel Action; Dr. Jim Garlow, Chairman, 
           Renewing American Leadership Action; Jeff Gayner, 
           Chairman, Americans for Sovereignty.
         Mandi Campbell, Legal Director, Liberty Center for Law 
           and Policy; Matt Smith, President, Catholic Advocate; 
           Donna Rice Hughes, President, Enough Is Enough; Barbara 
           Samuells, Co-Founder, 912 Super Senior; C. Preston 
           Noell, III, President, Tradition, Family, Property, 
           Inc.; Richard and Susan Falknor, Publishers, Blue Ridge 
           Forum; Lisa Miller, Founder, Tea Party WDC; Seton 
           Motley, President, Less Government; Colin A. Hanna, 
           President, Let Freedom Ring; David Stevens, MD, MA 
           (Ethics); Chief Executive Officer, Christian Medical 
           Association; Ron Pearson, President, Council for 
           America; Dr. William Greene, Founder and President, 
           RightMarch.com; Maureen Van Den Berg, Legislative 
           Director, American Association of Christian Schools; 
           Emmett McGroarty, Director, Preserve Innocence 
           Initiative; Andy Blom, Executive Director, American 
           Principles in Action; Mark Williamson, Founder and 
           President, Federal Intercessors; Peter J. Thomas, 
           Chairman, The Conservative Caucus; Teresa A. Citro, 
           Chief Executive Officer, Learning Disabilities 
           Worldwide, Inc.; Curt Levey, President, The Committee 
           for Justice; William A. Estrada, Director, Generation 
           Joshua.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been a consistent advocate for 
human rights around the world and support ensuring that the world is 
accessible to those with disabilities. However, I do not support the 
cumbersome regulations and potentially overzealous international 
organizations with anti-American biases that infringe upon American 
sovereignty.
  If we had not passed what I consider to be the gold standard for the 
disabled--and I do remember at that time the activity of the Senator 
from Massachusetts very strongly supporting it. But we have done our 
job. Other nations maybe haven't, but in our case I think we are looked 
upon by the outside as doing the responsible thing within our Nation: 
taking care of our own disabled.
  Mr. KERRY. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. INHOFE. I would be glad to respond to a question.
  Mr. KERRY. The Senator has raised the specter of somehow there would 
be a change in this treaty at some point that might affect America. Is 
the Senator not aware that any change to a treaty, in order to go into 
effect and have any impact on the United States, would require the 
advice and consent of the United States Senate?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I do understand that.
  Mr. KERRY. Without the advice and consent of the Senate, no change 
could possibly impact the United States.
  Mr. INHOFE. But I would also say that the bureaucrats who would be 
running the program would have points of clarification where it is 
otherwise vague, and I think that could happen. And the point I am 
making here is we don't need to do that when we have our own here.
  I understand there is a difference of opinion on this, and there are 
a lot of emotions. I saw in this morning's Roll Call magazine all the 
people lined up here with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. 
It doesn't say anything in the article, but it certainly attacks the 
emotions of individuals.
  So I am not satisfied they would not interfere or through their 
clarifications could change the intent. And even if they don't, we have 
taken care of our problem here.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is important in this kind of debate as 
we make a judgment with the Senators that we base our judgment on facts 
and on the reality. The Senator has suggested he is opposed to this 
treaty because an outside group could impose its will on the United 
States of America. What he has just acknowledged is they can't do that 
because it would require the advice and consent of the Senate.
  But, secondly, is the Senator aware that Senator Risch asked the 
Justice Department whether the Court interpreted the effect of a 
nonself-executing declaration--which is in this treaty? And the 
response is, the Court said: The United States ratified the 
international covenant on civil and political rights on the express 
understanding that it was not self-executing. And so it did not create 
obligations enforceable in the Federal courts.
  So the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the very 
standard being applied in this treaty, that it is not self-executing, 
means nobody has access to any court. There is no enforceable right 
against anybody in America created in this treaty.
  Mr. INHOFE. To answer the Senator, I am not aware of the specific 
Risch request and what kind of response it drew.
  I would only say this: It is important to understand that while the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and I differ on most of these 
treaties--we had the same disagreement on the Law of the Sea treaty. 
The question is, in my opinion, our sovereignty. I believe this 
infringes upon our sovereignty.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Kerry, Senator 
McCain, Senator Lugar, and so many others who have brought this matter 
to the floor.
  It was 22 years ago when an historic event took place on the floor of 
this Senate which changed the United States of America. It was 22 years 
ago when we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act, and we said a 
disability should not disqualify you or

[[Page S7368]]

limit you in terms of your opportunity as an American.
  Some people thought: This is obvious, everyone knows. But what was 
also obvious was there was discrimination taking place all across this 
great land. We removed that barrier to discrimination. And in passing 
the Americans with Disabilities Act, we stepped forward as a Nation.
  Was there fear and concern? Of course. I can recall going to Green 
County in rural Illinois and walking in Carrollton into City Hall, and 
they said: Does this mean we have to build a new restroom for the 
disabled? The answer was, Yes, and curb cuts, and other changes that 
seem so superficial to many but mean literally whether a disabled 
person can be part of America.
  What we did 22 years ago, though, wasn't novel. Because if you look 
at the course of American history, I think we have distinguished 
ourselves and successive generations by expanding the reach of freedom 
and opportunity. Think about how many times we have done that.
  If you go back to the earliest days of this great Nation when older 
white men sat together and decided who would rule America, they weren't 
thinking about those of color; they weren't thinking about women; they 
weren't thinking about the disabled; they sure weren't thinking about 
those who weren't property owners. No. It was a pretty elite group that 
would form our democracy. And then successive generations of Americans 
decided that if democracy meant anything, if America meant anything, we 
needed to expand that reach of opportunity each generation.
  The bloodiest experience of course was in the Civil War, when 600,000 
Americans were killed in the course of a war that went on for years and 
could have divided us once and for all as a Nation. But it didn't. With 
the leadership of Abraham Lincoln and the inspiration of so many others 
and the blood, sweat, tears, and lives of the victims, we saved this 
Republic. We ended slavery. We created an opportunity, which still took 
us years and years to become a reality--a reality we are still working 
for today.
  So now comes this treaty to the floor, and this treaty says to the 
world: What we did 22 years ago as a Nation is something we are proud 
to stand behind. It is basically an ideal that we have created an 
America that we want to export to the world. As we reflect on this 
debate--and you have heard some of those who oppose it--it is 
interesting the approach they are taking. They are fearful of change. 
They are fearful of what the expansion of opportunity for the disabled 
might mean to America.
  Senator Kerry has made the point very clearly: This convention, this 
treaty, will not require the United States to change any law. And if 
any changes are to be made in the future, they will be made with the 
workings of Congress and the President. This treaty, this convention, 
will not force that change.
  We meet all of the standards that are established in this convention 
when it comes to disabilities, and President George Herbert Walker 
Bush, a Republican, when he negotiated and crafted this treaty, said as 
much. Of course there are those who still question it. But, remember, 
every time we have opened this door of opportunity in America, every 
time we have expanded this definition of democracy to include another 
group that was being at least partially if not fully excluded, there 
have always been voices of concern and worry.
  There have been voices of those who have said maybe we are not ready 
for that much change. They would say: Oh, I am not opposed to people of 
color, but if you force every hotel and restaurant across America in 
interstate commerce to open their doors, that may be going to far. We 
have always heard those voices and, after listening patiently, we have 
ignored them and moved forward with the new definition of freedom in 
this country, a new definition of opportunity, and that is what this 
does.
  As we come together on the floor of the Senate, as we gather to 
discuss this historic treaty and what it means to us and our future, 
there is a reception taking place across the street. It is a reception 
for people with disabilities, and they are honoring one of our own: a 
man who served this country and this Senate in an exceptional way. His 
name is Bob Dole, of Russell, KS, who served in World War II, was 
severely disabled, came home uncertain of his future but dedicated his 
life to public service.
  I don't know how many weeks or months or years are left in Bob Dole's 
life, but he has made the passage of this convention on disabilities 
his life's work of the moment. We owe it to Bob Dole and to all of the 
disabled veterans like him who stand with locked arms, begging us to 
pass this convention--we owe it to the disabled people across America 
and around the world to stand once again for the rights of the disabled 
and for expanding opportunity, not just in America but across the 
world.
  People say we are an exceptional nation. There is a little bit of 
egotism in that statement, but I believe it is factual that America is 
an exceptional nation when it steps forward in the belief that freedom 
and liberty and opportunity should be for everyone within our country 
and around the world.
  Today is our chance. Let no argument over some minor political issue 
stop us from focusing on the reality that what we are doing is 
historic, not just for America but for the world. We owe it not just to 
Bob Dole, we owe it to the disabled veterans and the disabled community 
to stand and say to the world: Join us, join us in expanding the reach 
of opportunity to those who have been left behind.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the 
ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons 
with Disabilities. I understand it is a sensitive topic, one about 
which many of my constituents on both sides of the issue have strong 
feelings.
  Certainly most of us, if not all of us, have a family member or 
friend with a disability, and all of us live in a society that includes 
the disabled as highly valued members of our communities.
  I have heard from advocacy groups consisting of people who hope and 
believe that this treaty will protect disabled Americans as they travel 
abroad and as they go about their lives. But I have also heard from 
parents of disabled children who are concerned that this treaty, in 
adherence to the ``best interests of the child'' standard in article 7, 
will threaten their rights as a parent to determine the best education, 
treatment, and care for their disabled children. Proponents of this 
treaty will dismiss those concerns as myth, but I simply cannot support 
a treaty that threatens the right of parents to raise their children 
with the constant looming threat of State interference.
  If this vote and this treaty were in fact about protecting the rights 
of Americans with disabilities, then I might have a different position 
and the debate today would take on a very different tone. But this 
treaty is ultimately not about protecting the rights of Americans with 
disabilities because this treaty simply has no enforcement mechanism to 
protect those rights, the rights of disabled Americans, including 
veterans, who might travel to countries such as China or Russia or Mali 
or any other country that might choose to adopt this treaty.
  If the Senate desires to protect the rights of disabled Americans who 
travel abroad, then this Senate would do better to encourage other 
nations to model their own reforms, their own internal legal structures 
after the Americans with Disabilities Act which, 20 years after its 
passage, still sends a message that disabled Americans will always have 
fair access to housing, employment, and education in this Nation.
  I have mentioned a few things the treaty does not do. Now I would 
like to mention a few things the treaty does do that causes me some 
concern. First, article 34 establishes a committee, a committee on the 
rights of persons with disabilities. This committee will establish its 
own rules of procedure, and parties to the treaty are required to 
submit reports to the committee every 4 years.
  In general, U.N. human rights treaty committees have made demands of 
state parties that fall well outside of

[[Page S7369]]

the legal, social, economic, and cultural traditions and norms of state 
parties. Sometimes their recommendations also fall far afield from the 
stated topics of concern within the individual treaties. For example, 
the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, 
or CEDAW, as it is sometimes known, included a recommendation that 
China decriminalize prostitution.
  The U.N. Committee on Racial Discrimination went to great lengths to 
scold the United States on its detention policy at Guantanamo Bay. 
These recommendations often fall well beyond or are even in direct 
conflict with the treaty's goals.
  Article 7 of this treaty provides a ``best interests of the child'' 
standard stating:

       In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the 
     best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

  We all want to support the best interests of the child, every child. 
But I and many of my constituents, including those who homeschool their 
children or send their children to private or religious schools, have 
doubts that a foreign, U.N. body, a committee operating out of Geneva, 
Switzerland, should decide what is in the interests of the child at 
home with his or her parents in Utah or in any other State in our great 
Union.
  Article 4 of this treaty obligates the United States to recognize 
economic, social, and cultural entitlements as rights under domestic 
U.S. law. The Senate, in my opinion, has not adequately investigated 
how this standard will affect domestic U.S. Federal and State law. We 
have had one hearing on this issue that included both proponents and 
opponents of the treaty but did not substantively address my concerns 
about this standard, about this significant addition to what would 
become the law of the land of the United States of America.
  For these and other reasons I must oppose the U.N. Convention on the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and I encourage my colleagues to 
do the same.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator, and I 
understand there are colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have 
concerns about the United Nations, and I respect that. We have had 
these fights before, but I am having difficulty finding where the 
threat that the Senator has described gains any reality.
  Specifically, with respect to children, the Senator mentioned the 
question of a committee being created, and sometimes committees make 
recommendations outside of the purview of something. That may be true. 
But when have words, I ask the Senator--when have words or suggestions 
that have no power, that cannot be implemented, that have no access to 
the courts, that have no effect on the law of the United States and 
cannot change the law of the United States--when has that ever 
threatened anybody in our country?
  Mr. LEE. Whatever the United States ratifies----
  Mr. KERRY. Does the Senator agree that there is no power to change 
our law?
  Mr. LEE. No. I do not agree with that.
  Mr. KERRY. Can the Senator show where it is specifically when the 
Supreme Court has held this is not self-executing, there is no access 
to American courts; when it is clear by the statements of the treaty 
itself there is no law of the United States that is changed? When 
Attorney General Thornburgh, who helped to negotiate this treaty on 
behalf of President George Bush, says there is no change in law, what 
is it that the Senator suddenly has that suggests otherwise that has 
any basis in fact?
  Mr. LEE. First of all, whenever we ratify a treaty it becomes the law 
of the land under article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Secondly, 
whenever a body of law, whether embodied in U.N. convention or 
otherwise, becomes part of the corpus of customary international law, 
that often makes its way into U.S. judicial opinions. Is it direct? No. 
Does it directly undo any statute? No. But that doesn't mean it has no 
effect. If it had no effect we would not be here debating it today. It 
is the type of effect we worry about.
  The Senator and I see things differently as far as what type of 
effect it might have. But that is not to say it has no effect. We 
should not be ratifying a treaty that we think might offset U.S. law as 
it exists now. We believe this could have that impact. Exactly where 
that is going to come up, I cannot prove to the Senator where that is 
going to happen. But it does have some impact, and when we ratify a 
treaty we make it the law of the land.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator further, I know he is a 
good student of law, practitioner of law. I believe he understands that 
a treaty does not become customary international law just because the 
United States or another country ratifies it. The Senator is aware of 
that, I assume?
  Mr. LEE. Yes, of course. It doesn't become the law of the land just 
because it is in the treaty. But it often does. Its entry into 
customary international law can become facilitated by the U.S. 
ratification of it.
  Mr. KERRY. Again, the Senator has acknowledged that it does not 
become customary law; as a consequence, it has to somehow change. 
Within this--the Senator will agree that because the treaty adopts, in 
the body of the treaty, the statement that this is not self-executing 
and the Supreme Court has held that a nonexecuting treaty--let me just 
reference the specific case--Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, a 
2004 case--the Supreme Court said it is dispositive. Nonself-executing 
declaration is dispositive. The Court noted that the United States 
ratified a prior thing then--and said, ``it does not create obligations 
enforceable in Federal courts.''
  So there is no obligation created. The Senator then said: Why would 
we do this? Because we are the gold standard, and every other country 
is encouraged--encouraged; we cannot require them, but they are 
encouraged--to raise their standard to U.S. standards.
  Why would the Senator resist? I know the Senator and many of his 
colleagues argue we want other countries to be more like America. This 
is a treaty that, in fact, embraces that notion that they must be more 
like America. Why would the Senator not embrace that?
  Mr. LEE. If my distinguished colleague and friend, the senior Senator 
from Massachusetts is correct, that this would have no impact on our 
law, if in fact it does nothing, then why would we make it part of the 
U.S. law? Why would we make it part of the law by ratifying it and 
making it the law of the land under article VI of the Constitution?
  Mr. KERRY. I would say to the Senator, for a number of reasons: That 
allows the United States to sit at the table and actually advocate on 
behalf of our veterans, disabled veterans, who travel abroad.
  Mr. LEE. What table is it at which we have no seat because we have 
not ratified this treaty? What is it that we cannot do by having the 
most aggressive laws, the most robust laws protecting Americans with 
disabilities that we somehow achieve simply because we ratify this? If, 
in fact, that does nothing more than embrace that set of laws that we 
have actually passed, and if, in fact, as my friend says, this does 
nothing, then why do we ratify it?
  Mr. KERRY. No, let me make clear to the Senator, I have not said it 
does nothing. I have said it does not require a change in American law. 
I have said that it does not obligate the United States to a new set of 
standards or anything different from what we do today. I have said it 
does not allow anybody access to the Federal courts. That is different 
from saying it doesn't do anything. If it didn't do anything, I would 
not be here either. Nor would George Bush have signed this. Nor would 
George Herbert Walker Bush have begun the negotiations.
  This is not a Democrat-inspired treaty. This is a universally 
accepted set of principles about how we would like to see people in the 
rest of the world treat people with disabilities.
  There is more to be said about that, and there is more to be said. I 
want my colleagues to speak about why we are here.
  Let me recognize, if I can, the Senator from Arizona?--no, I will 
hold off on that, if I may.
  Let me recognize the Senator from New Mexico for 5 minutes.

[[Page S7370]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kerry for the 
recognition. I appreciate it. I have been an earlier supporter of the 
ratification of this important treaty. I am pleased to have worked with 
Senators Durbin, McCain, Harkin, Coons, and Barrasso. In particular, I 
want to thank the chairman and ranking member on the Foreign Relations 
Committee. I thank all of these fine Senators for their bipartisan work 
on this bill.
  We still have work to do to improve our treatment and acceptance of 
disabled persons. But through the Americans with Disabilities Act, the 
United States has been at the forefront of protecting the dignity of 
people with disabilities. This treaty will help expand American values 
and leadership throughout the world. It is a vital step forward in 
respecting the rights of the disabled.
  As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I am aware of the 
challenges many countries face. These challenges include supporting 
their disabled citizens. Our Nation has set the standard for improving 
access to buildings, technology, and other areas for the disabled. 
Without the United States accepting its leadership role, it is possible 
that different standards could be adopted internationally. As for one 
example, this would place disabled travelers at a disadvantage. They 
would be forced to deal with different standards while traveling 
overseas.
  In many countries there has been insignificant investment in 
infrastructure to improve access for the disabled, and in many cases 
there is a misunderstanding about what rights disabled persons should 
be afforded. Ratifying this treaty will help the United States clarify 
to the world that people with disabilities have dignity and that they 
are capable of living full and meaningful lives.
  For instance, article 6 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons 
with Disabilities addresses the issue of women with disabilities. The 
article provides that:

       State Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure 
     the full development, advancement, and empowerment of women 
     for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and 
     enjoyment of the human rights and fundamental freedoms set 
     out in the present Convention.

  Many countries are falling short in protecting the rights of women. 
It is tragic that so many women are subject to human rights abuses in a 
number of countries. Secretary of State Clinton has made empowering 
women an important part of our diplomatic priorities, and I support her 
efforts.
  Fortunately for the United States, we do not need to implement 
additional legislation in order to be in full compliance with the 
convention. Laws such as the Civil Rights Act, Title IX, the Family and 
Medical Leave Act strengthen the U.S. position in the convention, and 
our leadership could lead to other countries adopting similar 
protections for disabled women.
  Most importantly, I am reminded of the veterans who have returned 
from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These brave veterans have served 
in all the places we have asked them to go. They have advanced the 
interests and ideals of the United States. We owe them a debt for their 
service. Many of them have returned with severe wounds, some requiring 
a lifetime of care.
  I wish to read a statement from one of the veterans who appeared in 
front of the Foreign Relations Committee. John Lancaster is a disabled 
attorney and marine veteran. This is what he said:

       In 1968, I arrived in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive, 
     assigned to the 1st Battalion, 27th Marines as an Infantry 
     Platoon Commander. Five months later, I was shot and injured 
     in a firefight. After months of rehabilitation, I arrived 
     back home in Western New York a disabled veteran. Although my 
     friends and family welcomed me home, society did not receive 
     me quite as well. While there was certainly tension around 
     the politics of the Vietnam war, it was the inaccessibility 
     of my environment that made me feel the least welcome. I 
     returned to a country not ready to receive me as a man who 
     now used a wheelchair.

  That was the reality that an honored soldier had to overcome until 
the United States improved its laws to protect the disabled, and it is 
still a reality in many places overseas, places where our veterans and 
other disabled citizens will likely travel in the future for either 
business or pleasure. We must ratify this treaty because protecting the 
rights of the disabled is the right thing to do in the United States of 
America, and it is the right thing to do throughout the world.
  Again, I thank Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar for their hard work on 
this treaty. We look forward to our colleagues voting for it in a short 
hour from now.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-seven minutes still remains.
  Mr. KERRY. How much on the opponent's side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. About the same.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Delaware, Mr. Coons.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I also thank Senator Kerry for his 
chairmanship on the Foreign Relations Committee and his leadership on 
this very important issue. I thank Senator Lugar as well. Both 
Senators, in combination, led strongly on this important issue.
  Let me briefly add 2 minutes to the chorus on this floor today. 
First, as to the Senators who have spoken pointedly about their fears 
and their concerns about home schooling. I listened to their arguments 
while I was the Presiding Officer. Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma spoke 
passionately about his youngest daughter who homeschools her kids and 
about their fears that somehow this convention would hand the power to 
an unelected group of bureaucrats to direct the schooling of children 
in Oklahoma.
  I heard Senator Lee of Utah add a question to that negative chorus. 
He said, I have justifiable doubts that a U.N. committee in Geneva can 
judge the best interests of children in Utah.
  I agree. This convention does nothing to empower an international 
convention of bureaucrats to direct the schooling of children in 
Delaware, West Virginia, Indiana, or in Massachusetts.
  I am, frankly, upset that they have succeeded in scaring the parents 
who homeschool their children all over this country. My own office has 
gotten dozens of calls and letters demanding that I vote against this 
convention. As a matter of international law and as a matter of U.S. 
law, this convention does nothing to change the home schooling of 
children in America; rather, it does something positive.
  The Americans with Disabilities Act, which was led so brilliantly in 
its ratification by Senator Tom Harkin and Senator Robert Dole, who was 
a central architect in the passage in this Chamber, stands as a great 
accomplishment in this country in our steady progress toward freedom 
and inclusion. This convention, ratified by this Senate, would allow 
our voice to be heard in an international forum all over the world. A 
billion citizens of this world live with disabilities every day, and 
our voice deserves to be heard.
  When we open the Senate every day, we say the Pledge of Allegiance. 
At the end of it, we hold up to the world our standards: Liberty and 
justice for all. In this country, the Americans with Disabilities Act 
says we have accomplished real progress toward liberty for the disabled 
and justice for all. By ratifying this convention, our voice would be 
heard on these vital issues all over the world. It is a voice that 
deserves to be heard. I urge my colleagues to ratify the convention.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Almost 24 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first I thank Senator Kerry, Senator 
Lugar, and Senator McCain for their great leadership and their dogged 
persistence in making sure we can get this treaty through the committee 
and to the floor. It has been inspirational to

[[Page S7371]]

watch them work together in a bipartisan fashion to bring us to this 
point. I hope we don't lose that in terms of the vote.
  I just came over from the Dirksen building where we had a wonderful 
ceremony honoring former Senator Bob Dole. Some time ago I went back 
and I read Senator Dole's maiden speech on the Senate floor, dated 
April 14, 1969.
  Mr. President, I commend these remarks to my colleagues.
  Senator Dole spoke of the future of people with disabilities in 
America and what we need to do to change our society. That was in 1969. 
It was 21 years later when we passed the Americans with Disabilities 
Act. The country has changed so much for the better because of that.
  We are sitting here now with a convention by the U.N. which basically 
says to the rest of the world: You have to do what America did. In 
establishing this convention, the U.N. was informed by the Americans 
with Disabilities Act, and a lot of it is based upon what we did here.
  As the committee showed, not one of our laws or anything has to be 
changed. Not one. We are the best in the world at this. Yet what this 
convention gives us is a seat at the table. When other countries have 
signed on to the treaty, it gives us a seat at the table to be able to 
work with other countries and to help them upgrade their laws so that 
people with disabilities have more opportunities in other countries. 
Why would we deny ourselves a seat at the table when we have been a 
leader in this effort for so long?
  I listened to the speeches by both Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma and 
Senator Lee from Utah. These are unfounded fears. I repeat, there is 
nothing in there that is going to allow anyone from the United Nations 
to take a child away from a family or tell a family they cannot 
homeschool a kid or anything such as that. There is nothing in there. 
These are totally unfounded fears. We should not be driven by unfounded 
fears. We should be driven by what we know of our experience, what we 
have done, what the wording of the convention is, and the fact that 
none of our laws has to be changed because of it.
  The Senator from Utah made the point that we all know people with 
disabilities. We have family members or friends, and we value them. We 
truly do value people with disabilities in our society. Well, if we 
truly value them, why don't we listen to them?
  There are over 300 disability rights groups that support this. Not 
one said they won't support it. So if we value them, why don't we 
listen to them? Do we want to keep patronizing people with disabilities 
and say, you are all right, but we won't listen to you because we know 
what is best for you? We don't know what is best for people with 
disabilities. We know who knows what is best for people with 
disabilities: It is people with disabilities. They all said this is 
important.
  There are 300 disability organizations that asked us to support this 
ratification. I think we should listen to them and get their advice. 
Think about what the disabilities community here in America could do 
with that seat at the table and how we can work with other countries to 
help them upgrade their laws. I have a hard time understanding why 
people would be driven by unfounded fears to vote against this with all 
of the evidence from 22 years of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 
including the hearings held by Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar which 
brought out all the information and pointed out that not one of our 
laws has to be changed at all. In the face of all of that evidence, 
someone will vote on the basis of an unfounded fear.
  I remember when we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 
1990. It took a long time. There were a lot of fears out there. There 
were fears of: Oh, my gosh, we are going to have to do this and that. 
Buses have to have lifts on them, and we have to build those curb cuts. 
What, kids with disabilities get to go to school?
  They were unfounded fears. We became a stronger and better society 
because of it. This treaty will make us a better world in which to live 
for all people and not just those who have disabilities.
  I urge all of my colleagues, don't give in to unfounded fears. Take 
the good advice of Senator Bob Dole, President Bush, former Congressman 
Steve Bartlett, John McCain, John Kerry, and Dick Lugar,  people who 
have been in the trenches on this, and take the advice of the 
disability community here and abroad. If you will do that, we will win 
a resounding victory today.

  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the United 
Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
  As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have participated 
in the hearings and debates on this treaty, and I understand the 
aspirations of the groups who support it. But I have serious concerns 
about reaching those goals through a legally binding United Nations 
treaty.
  Other U.N. organizations have failed to achieve their stated purposes 
and actively work against the interests of the United States.
  Not even a week ago, the United Nations General Assembly voted 
overwhelmingly to upgrade the Palestinian Authority to ``non-member 
observer state'' over the objections of the United States and Israel. 
This is a breach of the Oslo accords and will hurt the Middle East 
peace process. Secretary Clinton called it ``unfortunate and 
counterproductive.''
  The U.N. Human Rights Council includes notable human rights violators 
such as Cuba, China, and Russia. These countries have made little 
progress improving the rights of their citizens, and nearly 40 percent 
of the council's country-specific human-rights condemnations are 
against Israel.
  More worrisome, convention committees--such as the Committee on the 
Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Convention on the 
Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women--have a track 
record of overstepping their authority and advocating positions 
contrary to American laws and values.
  In the past, these committees have supported giving voting rights to 
felons, the decriminalization of prostitution, gender quotas, and 
increased access to abortion.
  Overly broad language included in this treaty would likely allow the 
U.N. to meddle in many of our domestic matters. International 
bureaucrats working with the U.N. should not be able to influence how 
the United States creates and implements laws for the disabled, 
especially when members come from countries with lower human rights 
standards than our own.
  The purpose of any treaty should be to advance specific security or 
economic interests that make us a stronger and safer nation. This 
treaty does neither.
  Last week on the floor, Leader Reid argued that we must ratify this 
treaty to ``take the high ground'' on these issues with the rest of the 
world. But the United States does not have to join a U.N. convention or 
any other organization to give ourselves legitimacy and moral authority 
in the world.
  For decades, the United States has been the global leader and 
champion for persons with disabilities. We must continue to work hard 
to improve the lives of disabled citizens in our country. Encouraging 
respect for disabled persons is important and the goals of this 
convention are admirable.
  This convention will do nothing to improve the rights of Americans in 
the United States. We have little evidence to suggest that joining this 
convention and its committee will ensure that other countries improve 
their protection of disabled people. Of the 126 member countries, this 
convention's committee has only issued recommendations to a handful.
  Portions of this convention also concern reproductive health, the 
rights of families, and the use of the treaty in our courts.
  Attempts were made in the committee to clarify some of these sections 
and protect American sovereignty, but those attempts were defeated.
  These issues should be addressed by individual U.S. States and local 
governments, not an international bureaucracy where Americans have no 
elected representation.
  We should never cede the authority of these matters to an 
international organization. President Washington's warning in his 
farewell address bears repeating here. He said:

       The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign 
     nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have 
     with them as little

[[Page S7372]]

     political connection as possible. So far as we have already 
     formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good 
     faith. Here let us stop.

  His words serve as a compelling argument against this treaty today.
  We should be wary of international alliances and only work within 
them when they will strengthen America or make her safer.
  I encourage my colleagues to reject this treaty and address this 
important issue in a format that does not endanger the sovereignty of 
the United States.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities has the admirable goal of advancing the 
interests and rights of the disabled across the world. However, I have 
great concerns about acceding to this convention. I am also 
disappointed that the Senate will dedicate just 2 hours of debate to 
consider this convention, without the ability for any Senators to offer 
or consider worthy amendments.
  U.S. leadership in advancing and safeguarding the rights of the 
disabled is unmatched. The United States is the leader on disability 
issues. It's for this reason that the convention is modeled on the 
disability rights laws of the United States. However, I have serious 
doubts that simply joining the convention will lead to greater U.S. 
influence in promoting disability rights abroad. The ability of the 
United States to lead on this issue is not and should not be dependent 
upon joining this convention. We can lead on disability rights abroad 
because we lead on disability rights at home.
  Joining this convention will have no impact on the disability rights 
of Americans in this country. Americans with disabilities are already 
afforded the rights contained with the treaty. Many Federal and State 
laws protect the rights of the disabled, including the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. Even proponents of the convention acknowledge that it 
will not enhance the rights of individuals with disabilities in 
America.
  We have made great strides in disability policy in America. Laws 
which I authored, such as the Family Opportunity Act and Money Follows 
the Person, not only gave the disabled health care coverage but gave 
them real self-determination in that health care coverage. In the 
future, I will continue to work to protect coverage of the disabled 
during difficult budgetary times and work to find solutions for the 
disabled that allow for coordination of support services across all an 
individual's needs. While I respect the concerns and goals of 
supporters of this treaty, we should not let this take the place of 
focusing on problems and solutions here in America.
  However, becoming a party to the convention would subject the United 
States to the eighteen-member Committee on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities. This committee is created to monitor the implementation 
of the convention and provide conclusions and recommendations with 
regard to State Party's treaty reports. I have serious concerns about 
the infringement upon U.S. sovereignty by a committee tasked with 
providing criticisms and recommendations for the United States on our 
disability laws.
  Further, the convention raises additional concerns by unnecessarily 
including references in the area of ``sexual and reproductive health'' 
and the ``best interests of the child.'' These provisions call into 
question the purpose of the convention regarding abortion rights and 
the fundamental rights of parents to determine how best to raise their 
children.
  It is for these reasons, along with the decision of the majority 
leader to shut out the rights of Senators by prohibiting the 
consideration of any amendments, that I oppose this convention.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, my late grandfather was one of the most 
influential people in my life. Until his death when I was 13, ``Papa'' 
was a mentor who spent countless hours on our front porch with me 
discussing history, politics and baseball. As a Cuban immigrant, he 
knew how special America is, and it is one lesson from him that I will 
never forget.
  Papa was also my hero for the way he lived his life. Stricken by 
polio as a boy, he would be disabled for the rest of his life. He would 
often walk miles to work at a cigar factory to provide for his family. 
Because of his disability, walking was difficult for him and he would 
often return home at night with his clothes dirty from repeatedly 
falling to the ground. But he kept getting up, and lived a life that I 
admire and will never forget. Because of him, I knew from a very early 
age the inherent dignity and beauty evident in every disabled human 
being on earth, whether they were born with their disability or 
developed it in the course of their lives.
  The landmark Americans With Disabilities Act, enshrined into law many 
fundamental rights to help disabled people live life. As Americans, it 
should make us all proud because it is one reason the United States has 
set the gold standard in the world for disability rights. It has 
demonstrated to everyone else one more dimension of our exceptional 
people, ensuring that our disabled brothers and sisters have better 
opportunities to rise above their physical limitations to stake their 
claim on the American Dream.
  As the Senate considers the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities today, it is important to note that a failure to approve 
it would in no way diminish what we have accomplished in America on 
disability rights, just as its passage would not improve the laws 
affecting Americans with disabilities. Furthermore, nothing on this 
treaty compels other nations to raise their standards or in any way 
improve the care they afford to persons with disabilities. Therefore, I 
stand in opposition of its ratification today.
  The treaty's supporters have argued that its passage will elevate 
disability rights abroad, to the benefit of disabled people not 
fortunate enough to live under laws like ours and also to disabled 
Americans when they travel. However, the United States already promotes 
disabled rights and better laws abroad through the State Department and 
our foreign embassies. The Americans With Disabilities Act, and 
subsequent improvements to it, should be the law upon which other 
countries base their own laws protecting their disabled people and 
aiming to make their lives better.
  I believe America's example should lead the way on achieving stronger 
universal disability rights than the United Nations, the governing body 
entrusted to oversee this treaty's implementation. The American example 
of millions of disabled Americans living their dreams is a stronger 
force to compel other countries to do the same than a United Nations 
body populated by such chronic human rights abusers as China and 
Russia, nations that fail to respect the fundamental rights of 
everyone, much less their disabled.
  When this treaty was originally negotiated, a bipartisan consensus 
existed that this treaty would not address abortion. This is an 
appropriate position when you consider that, too often, unborn children 
in the United States and across the world are aborted because their 
disabilities have been detected while in the womb. When the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee debated this issue in July, I offered an 
amendment to make clear this Convention does not create, endorse or 
promote abortion rights as reproductive health. I made clear its intent 
was not to change U.S. domestic laws on this matter. All my proposed 
change did was state very clearly that, at the end of the day, this 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is about 
protecting persons with disabilities, regardless of their stage in 
life. Because this important change was not adopted and for all the 
reasons I have outlined here, I cannot support Senate ratification of 
this treaty.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President. The Senate today is considering the 
ratification of an important treaty that will further strengthen the 
United States' longstanding role as a beacon of human rights around the 
world. I support ratification of the United Nations Convention on the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD, and hope that this treaty, 
which enjoys bipartisan support, will be approved by the Senate today.
  I have long been a strong supporter of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, ADA, which has served to protect the rights of 
disabled U.S. citizens for more than 2 decades. The CRPD is a natural 
extension of many of the core principles guided by the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. I believe that any person living with a disability, 
regardless

[[Page S7373]]

of where they were born or where they reside, should be protected from 
discrimination and unfair treatment.
  President Obama signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities in 2009, and earlier this year, he submitted the treaty to 
the Senate for ratification. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
reported the CRPD to the full Senate in July, and it is right that the 
Senate is taking action on this important treaty before this Congress 
adjourns. Current U.S. law already provides a number of protections 
called for under the CRPD. The Foreign Relations Committee included in 
its reported treaty reservations, understandings, and a declaration 
which will allow the United States to be in full compliance with the 
treaty, without making changes to existing U.S. law.
  Like President Obama, I believe this convention serves a number of 
American interests, including encouraging protection of U.S. citizens 
and servicemembers with disabilities who live or travel abroad, and 
assisting U.S. businesses by ensuring that their international 
counterparts are required to comply with similar laws.
  Around the world, 125 nations have signed the Convention on the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and are parties to this treaty. 
Its ratification is supported by both Democrats and Republicans, and by 
well over 300 religious organizations, health care centers, advocates 
for people with disabilities, and veterans' organizations. Disability 
Rights Vermont and the Vermont Center for Independent Living are among 
those organizations supporting ratification. I hope all Senators will 
support this important treaty. It sends the right message to the rest 
of the world that the United States cares about the dignity of all 
people.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today the United States Senate is 
considering a resolution to provide its advice and consent with respect 
to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD. At 
its heart, the Convention is a non-discrimination treaty, which 
requires that persons with disabilities have the same general rights as 
those without disabilities.
  I am grateful for the opportunities this Nation provided me as a 
young man who returned from World War II as an amputee. Those 
opportunities included a college and law degree, eventually serving the 
Territory and State of Hawaii. I was fortunate my injury did not hinder 
my dream to work for, and serve the people of Hawaii. Throughout my 
years in the Senate, I joined with my colleagues to advance non-
discrimination initiatives that protect all Americans. In 1989, I was 
proud to join with my good friend Senator Harkin as an original 
cosponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, in the Senate, 
and vote for its passage in 1990. The ADA, established in law, our 
Nation's dedication to ensure those born with disabilities, or those 
who suffer life changing disabilities, are individuals with dignity. 
Furthermore, that those individuals enjoy the same rights and 
opportunities all Americans are guaranteed under the Constitution. 
Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case around the world.
  The ADA and its goals served as the model for the treaty resolution 
before us today. This Convention will help move countries toward 
protecting the rights of disabled individuals. Practically, it will 
allow the U.S. to engage other countries in the international arena to 
work toward the standards and accessibility here in the United States, 
which will benefit disabled Americans who work, live, and travel the 
world. We are fortunate U.S. law meets or exceeds the obligations of 
the CRPD, and that no implementing legislation is required. Our country 
stands up to protect the rights of the most vulnerable in our society. 
We cannot comprehend the mistreatment or simply the disregard of the 
lives of those with disabilities. Ratifying this treaty will reaffirm 
our country's leadership and commitment to the basic human rights of 
disabled men, women, and children. I am pleased to join my colleagues 
in support of the ratification of the CRPD.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I renew my request now. We have had about 
four successive Democrats speak. There is nobody here from the other 
side. I do not think it is fair to have our time docked as a result. So 
I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the 
time be charged to the opponents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask that I be notified after 7 
minutes.
  Mr. President, when the Senate gives its advice and consent to a 
treaty, it becomes the ``supreme law of the land'' on par with Federal 
statutes. This is Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It is 
in our Constitution. That is why we must take great care in ratifying 
treaties and doing so only if it advances U.S. interests at home or 
abroad.
  The overwhelming majority of constituent comments my office has 
received have been in opposition to the convention--approximately 1,000 
letters in opposition; 40 letters or so in support.
  Moreover, I, along with 36 other Senators, joined a letter to the 
Senate leadership requesting that no treaties be brought to the floor 
during the lameduck session.
  A treaty is a powerful document, equal to or above statutory law. 
Historically, treaties are to regulate the relationship between 
sovereign nations. They do things like settle border disputes and 
create trade relations between those two nations. While treaties on 
occasion have blurred the line between international relations, the 
line, the principle still remains fundamentally intact.
  This Nation has never ratified a treaty of which the entire focus is 
to empower an international agency--here, the United Nations, an 
organization that truly is proving to be dysfunctional and often 
hostile to the most legitimate interests of the United States--to 
monitor the internal policies of the United States. This is 
particularly curious in that the United States has the world's best 
record on disability issues.
  Se we are told, let's ratify the treaty because we already meet, at 
least today, all the requirements of the treaty. This will set an 
example. In truth, we have already set an example. We lead the world.
  This treaty, however, has misdirected the focus of the United States 
and the world community away from nations who do little or nothing for 
the disabled and to direct blame first on this Nation.
  Of course, the United States has a most magnificent system of law. It 
is the foundation of our liberty, our prosperity, and our happiness. 
Thus, if we were to ratify this treaty, we can be sure that 
international hypocrites will soon demand that the United States do 
this or that. All the while, their countries will have been in full 
violation of virtually every provision of the treaty. Many other 
mischievous actions will certainly arise to bedevil our country, and we 
will have hypocritical meddlers complicating our internal disability 
efforts, as well as our internal social and health policies. I do not 
think this is necessary.
  Now, I agree that the United States and the world can do more to 
advance the cause of the disabled. I truly do. I recently visited the 
very fine Alabama School for the Deaf and Blind. I personally saw how 
inexpensive computers can transform the daily lives of the disabled. 
Deaf and blind can move from being disconnected to connected, from 
unemployed to highly productive. It was such a moving and positive 
experience to see what can be done today with the technology this world 
has.
  When one visits our magnificent military hospital at Walter Reed 
National Military Medical Center, one can see the devices that are used 
there on a regular basis to make the lives of those who have been 
injured better. The whole world will benefit if more of this technology 
is made available.
  The right way to advance assistance for the disabled worldwide is to 
be active internationally, to be on the front

[[Page S7374]]

lines promoting these good techniques and policies, and to use more of 
our existing foreign aid for this purpose rather than wasting it, as we 
too often do, on corrupt governments that take it and do little for 
their people. I believe the State Department should strengthen its 
outreach in this important area. I have even drafted a law that would 
require them to establish such a department within their agency. As we 
spend billions yearly on aid, surely we can be more effective in 
ensuring that the equipment, devices and treatments that are life 
transfiguring are given more emphasis by our government.
  We ought to raise the level of priority we give to the disabled.
  Yes, I acknowledge that such expenditures are not purely a part of 
our Nation's national security policy, but America has always responded 
to the call to be a force for good in the world.
  I just left a meeting 15 minutes ago with United Methodists from the 
North Alabama Conference who have a project to fight AIDS, HIV, and 
malaria in Africa. This is part of the American heritage, and we do 
this every day, and it should be done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 7 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  This is our heritage, a heritage that has proven to be a blessing to 
the world. We do not want to walk away from that.
  Another part of our heritage is the rule of law--that clear and 
strong understanding of the unique quality of national sovereignty. We 
are honest people. We are productive people. We are lawful people. We 
know that we will be able to be more prosperous and thus able to help 
others if we protect our economy from reckless, dangerous spending and 
the authority of our legal system from erosion. Thus, I conclude this 
treaty is unnecessary and, in fact, dangerous for our Nation.
  So let's do more for the disabled worldwide. I will be supportive of 
that. But let's do it without enmeshing our Nation into another binding 
international organization that will cause more grief than benefit.
  I will conclude with one more thing.
  I am coming to the view that we as a nation need to be more legally 
aware of the dangers of signing agreements with foreign nations that 
regulate internal affairs, even if we are not giving away direct powers 
over the United States. I do not see that is necessary. I think that is 
a bad step. I am opposed to that. I think that in the long run, we will 
have difficulties.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, yield the floor, and reserve the 
remainder of our time for my colleagues who I know want to speak on 
this matter.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Arizona 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor with a bit of a heavy 
heart today because I think the Senate may not act to approve the 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I would say the 
issue is not going away. I think there are too many Americans and too 
many veterans organizations and too many people who are committed to 
this cause, that over time we may have every chance and every 
opportunity to succeed.
  I remind my colleagues that virtually every major veterans 
organization in America supports the treaty, people who represent those 
men and women who have fought and particularly try to assist those with 
disabilities that are the result of combat. They are AMVETS; the Air 
Force Sergeants Association; Air Force Women Officers Associated; the 
American GI Forum; the Association of the United States Navy; the 
Blinded Veterans Association; Disabled American Veterans; Iraq and 
Afghanistan Veterans of America; Jewish War Veterans; the Military 
Officers Association of America; the National Association of Black 
Veterans; the National Guard Association of the United States; the 
National Military Family Association; Paralyzed Veterans of America; 
the American Legion; Veterans for Common Sense; Veterans of Foreign 
Wars; Veterans of Modern Warfare; VetsFirst, a program of the United 
Spinal Association; Vietnam Veterans of America; and the Wounded 
Warrior Project.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of all 
these veterans organizations be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Veterans Support the Convention as the Rights of Persons with 
                              Disabilities

       Vote YES for the CRPD in 2012! In a letter of support for 
     the disability treaty, 21 veterans service organizations 
     highlight why the CRPD is important to them:
       The CRPD is important to veterans and servicemembers with 
     disabilities because it embodies the principles of the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Like the ADA, the CRPD 
     supports equal treatment and non-discrimination in access to 
     rehabilitation, employment and educational opportunities. We 
     support the principles of the ADA because it promotes 
     empowerment of our nation's veterans and servicemembers with 
     disabilities by providing the opportunity to achieve 
     independent living and inclusion into all aspects of society.
       As organizations that represent veterans and servicemembers 
     and their families, we believe that the CRPD would remove 
     barriers and allow American servicemembers and veterans with 
     disabilities to work, serve, study, and live abroad. In part, 
     barriers will be diminished due to changing attitudes around 
     the world regarding people with disabilities. As a result of 
     the changes occurring through the CRPD, servicemembers and 
     veterans with disabilities will be able to continue leading 
     active lives within the global community.
       VSOs that Support U.S. Ratification of the CRPD: AMVETS; 
     Air Force Sergeants Association; Air Force Women Officers 
     Associated; American GI Forum; Association of the United 
     States Navy; Blinded Veterans Association; Disabled American 
     Veterans; Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; Jewish 
     War Veterans; Military Officers Association of America; 
     National Association for Black Veterans; National Guard 
     Association of the United States; National Military Family 
     Association; Paralyzed Veterans of America; The American 
     Legion; Veterans for Common Sense; Veterans of Foreign Wars; 
     Veterans of Modern Warfare; VetsFirst, a program of United 
     Spinal Association; Vietnam Veterans of America; Wounded 
     Warrior Project.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I commend to my colleagues a very moving 
letter to the U.S. Senate from a very famous man, a Chinese dissident 
who was blinded, who recently was able to leave China, which was 
printed in the Record yesterday.
  I will not quote from his whole letter. He says:

       This treaty is making this idea real in significant ways 
     around the world. Today there are over 1 billion people with 
     disabilities, and 80 percent of them live in developing 
     countries. Disability rights is an issue that the world 
     cannot afford to overlook. When the United States enacted the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act over 20 years ago, the idea 
     of true equality for people with disabilities became a 
     reality. Many nations have followed in America's footsteps 
     and are now coming together under shared principles of 
     equality, respect and dignity for people with disabilities as 
     entailed in the treaty.
       The United States, which was instrumental in negotiating 
     this treaty, can continue to advance both its principles and 
     issues of practical accessibility for its citizens and all 
     people around the world and, by ratifying the treaty, so take 
     its rightful place of leadership in the arena of human 
     rights.

  That is what this is all about--American leadership, American 
leadership in the world. I don't know how many millions of people 
around the world are deprived of the same rights that Bob Dole and Tom 
Harkin and so many others made possible, but do I know this is an 
expression of American leadership throughout the world--I think an 
obligation America should embrace.
  I would like to read a statement by our distinguished former 
colleague and leader, Bob Dole. More than a dear friend, Bob remains an 
authentic hero to millions of his countrymen, someone whose personal 
example of wartime sacrifice was equaled--if such a thing is possible--
by his service in this body. He is respected wherever people value 
political courage and civility.
  Bob Dole returned from World War II, one of the countless wounded 
warriors whose defense of our liberty curtailed his own. Gravely 
injured, disabled for life, he developed a unique personal 
understanding of his fellow Americans excluded from the mainstream. In 
the years that followed, Bob fought to ensure not only that no American 
would be relegated to the back of the bus but also, in the case of the 
disabled, that no one would be prevented from boarding the bus.
  Bob Dole has been our leader on the issue of disabilities from the 
moment he stepped foot into the Chamber. To Bob, it is unthinkable that 
Americans

[[Page S7375]]

could not get over a curb or enter a school building or even watch a 
debate in this Chamber if they were in a wheelchair.
  On April 14, 1969, the same date he was injured in the hills of Italy 
24 years earlier, he made his maiden speech on the topic of Americans 
with disabilities. In every legislative initiative since then, Bob Dole 
has been a leader on behalf of people with disabilities, bills such as 
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, IDEA; the Developmental Disabilities Act, and the 
Americans with Disabilities Act. He was responsible for including 
people with disabilities in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and for 
ensuring that people with disabilities are part of the State 
Department's annual report on human rights around the world.
  After leaving this Chamber, Bob Dole prompted the Congress to pass 
the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999--
breakthrough legislation on health care and employment for people with 
disabilities.
  This past year he has been instrumental in working with the 
administration and Congress to ensure bipartisan support for the 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to reflect 
American leadership and values and safeguarding the rights of every 
individual in the world.
  I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes to be added on to 
the time of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to have Bob Dole's statement 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Senator Robert J. Dole, December 4, 2012, Statement on the Senate Vote 
  on the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (CRPD)

       I'd like to thank my former colleagues, members of the 
     Administration, and many friends whose efforts have brought 
     about the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
     Disabilities. In their diversity they reflect America 
     itself--I'm thinking of people including our former 
     colleagues Tony Coehlo, former Attorney General Dick 
     Thornburgh, and former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray--
     key leaders on the landmark and bipartisan 1990 Americans 
     with Disabilities Act. They have taken great pains to ensure 
     that this treaty is in the best interest of our Nation, and 
     reflective of the values that we all believe transcend any 
     party label. I especially thank President George H.W. Bush 
     for his indispensable leadership and support.
       The approaching vote on the Convention on the Rights of 
     Persons with Disabilities is a proud moment for the Senate, 
     the latest chapter of an untold story including the Americans 
     that say: no first class democracy can tolerate second class 
     citizens.
       In recent years, we have recognized that people with 
     disabilities are integral to our society, that we cannot 
     afford to waste their talents, nor can we proclaim our 
     beloved America demonstrably--the home of the brave, the land 
     of the free--as we overlook the abilities that trump any 
     disabilities. As the ranks of the disabled and their families 
     swell, so does popular support for measures to ensure 
     equality of access and opportunity. One way or another 
     disability issues touch nearly every family in America.
       Eight years ago, in dedicating the National World War II 
     Memorial on the Mall, I tried to put into words what makes 
     America worth fighting for--if need be, dying for. I spoke of 
     the American promise, imperfectly realized and too long 
     delayed for some of our fellow citizens--but a promise of 
     individual opportunity and universal justice for which we all 
     aspire. ``This is the golden thread that runs throughout the 
     tapestry of our nationhood,'' I said, ``the dignity of every 
     life, the possibility of every mind, the divinity of every 
     soul.'' In ratifying the CRPD, we can affirm these goals for 
     Americans with disabilities. We can join with our allies in 
     entrusting the blessings of freedom to millions outside our 
     borders. I urge your support of this important treaty and I 
     thank you for your consideration.

  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities or the CRPD. The United States has a long and proud 
tradition of protecting human rights, especially those of the disabled. 
I do not believe we need to ratify an international convention to 
demonstrate our firm commitment in this area.
  CRPD ratification would do nothing to improve the lives of the 
disabled in the United States, and if other countries are looking for 
good examples of how to improve their laws, they could do no better 
than to refer to U.S. laws. Just as with many treaties before this one, 
the CRPD would offer cover to regimes that have no intention of 
actually helping their citizens, while needlessly tying the hands of 
countries such as the United States that have actually made great 
strides in this area.
  I take China as just one example. According to Human Rights Watch, 
Chinese citizens even suspected of having a mental disability can be 
arbitrarily committed to institutions because Chinese law offers almost 
no protections against involuntary civil commitment. Moreover, Beijing 
is now considering a draft mental health disability law that would 
``permit the indefinite involuntary detention, forced medication, and 
forced labor of persons suspected of having a mental disability.'' 
Obviously, this is in direct contravention to both the spirit and the 
letter of the CRPD even though Beijing has ratified it--I repeat: even 
though Beijing has already ratified the treaty. So while this 
convention has no mechanism to force countries such as China to 
actually respect their disabled citizens, what it does do is allow 
their leaders to falsely present themselves as forward-leaning on 
disabled rights just as they continue to run roughshod over such 
protections at home.
  Supporters of this convention claim that ratifying it would allow our 
country to assume the moral high ground when it comes to addressing 
other countries' gaps in disabilities rights. I would argue just the 
opposite. As I just mentioned, becoming a party to this convention 
would actually put us in the company of nations that are nowhere near 
the high ground on this issue, moral or otherwise.
  Moreover, we already have the most comprehensive disability rights 
laws and protections in the world, period. In fact, the U.S. record of 
disabilities rights-related laws stretches back more than four decades, 
unequivocally demonstrating our commitment and leadership in this area. 
That is why many nations look to us for guidance in developing their 
own disability laws and discrimination protections. We do not need a 
treaty to provide that guidance, obviously.
  For example, the European Union is looking to current U.S. law as a 
model for its own accessibility initiatives. In January of 2011, 
European Commission Vice President Viviane Reding discussed proposals 
for what is designated a ``European Accessibility Act,'' citing 
progress made in the United States under the provisions of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,'' which I was proud to 
support. Reding believes ``that the EU should learn from this positive 
experience and go ahead in Europe too.''
  The convention's supporters also erroneously contend that U.S. 
ratification would result in tangible benefits for Americans with 
disabilities who choose to live, travel, or work abroad. They assert 
that it would allow the United States to have greater influence over 
disability rights in such areas as employment or accessibility among 
other states that are party to CRPD. I think this is far from certain.
  To be sure, Americans with disabilities face serious challenges when 
they travel abroad precisely because those nations' laws are not as 
supportive as are those here in the United States--the matter I spoke 
of a moment ago. But it is the example we have set through our 
legislation, not ratification of this convention, that could improve 
their access, for example, to technology, as our Telecommunications Act 
of 1996 does, or accommodations that would be available, as the 
American Fair Housing Act does, for example. Only individual member 
states can draft and implement and enforce the type of wide-ranging 
laws that are necessary to actually protect the rights of persons with 
disabilities--laws, I might add, that are already in place here in the 
United States of America.
  We know all too well from experience with other treaties that states 
such as China routinely flout their treaty obligations. I believe it 
boils down to this: Countries look to the United States for leadership 
in this area not because we are party to an international treaty but 
because we have actually demonstrated our commitment through tangible 
and sustained action. Our

[[Page S7376]]

commitment to the rights of the disabled does not end with the passage 
of laws or the enforcement of regulations; rather, it is an ongoing 
commitment through civil society and a myriad of civic groups, NGOs, 
and religious organizations, many of which work abroad to help improve 
the lives of persons with disabilities. It also extends to individuals, 
including entrepreneurial Americans who continuously seek to develop 
new cutting-edge technologies to improve the lives of anyone who might 
benefit from such tools.
  I am not naive regarding the challenges we face in ensuring that 
persons with disabilities around the world can benefit from the kind of 
education, employment, and housing access Americans with disabilities 
already enjoy here in the United States. I firmly believe the United 
States must continue to pursue this disability diplomacy on both a 
bilateral and multilateral basis where it is appropriate. But it is not 
at all clear to me that it is necessary to ratify this convention to 
achieve our goal of promoting disability rights and protecting the 
disabled from discrimination.
  At the end of the day, I believe the proponents argue two 
contradictory positions: first, that it is really important that the 
United States ratify the convention so that nations will have to 
respect the rights of disabled persons. The second argument they make 
is that the United States need not be concerned about obligations under 
the treaty because it is not enforceable, it really has no effect on 
us.
  Well, both things cannot be true. Either it is a problem or it is not 
effective. In either event, it is not an argument for ratification of 
the treaty. So while I respect the goals and the aspirations of the 
proponents, they do not justify committing the United States to another 
international obligation. As a result, I will oppose the resolution of 
ratification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what is the time allegation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 10 minutes, 
and the time in opposition has 8 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona--it is my 
understanding that there is no other speaker on the Senator's side. I 
would simply ask if we could have an additional 5 minutes on this side, 
if the Senator would not object, and that would bring us to the vote at 
noon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me just say to the Senator from Arizona 
before he leaves, the Senator and I have engaged on these issues for 
some years now, and we have disagreed respectfully and in a friendly 
way.
  I would say to him, very respectfully, that there is no contradiction 
in the position of the proponents of this bill. While I understand what 
he said about China, the fact is that because China has signed up--and 
Russia and other countries--if we were a party to this and at the table 
discussing it, we would have greater leverage in order to be able to 
advance the rights of persons in China and elsewhere.
  Now, don't take that from me, I would say to the Senator from 
Arizona. Guongcheng Chen is the blind activist for civil rights in 
China who has sought refuge in America for a brief period of time. His 
family has suffered in China, and he has written a letter to us. He 
says:

       Dear Senators,
       I am writing you to personally ask for your support for the 
     Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. As you 
     know, my work on civil rights began with trying to ensure 
     that people with disabilities in my home country of China 
     were afforded the same rights as everyone else. The CRPD is 
     making this idea real in significant ways around the world 
     today.

  He goes on to say:

       I am hopeful that you will support ratification and allow 
     others to benefit from these triumphs.

  And he is referring to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 
other things we have done.
  I ask unanimous consent that this document of organizations 
supporting the treaty be placed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  The Coalition for United States Ratification of the United Nations 
         Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

       President Herbert Walker Bush; The Honorable Bob Dole; The 
     Honorable Tony Coelho;; The Honorable Dick Thornburgh; The 
     Honorable Steve Bartlett; Ambassador Boyden Gray; Mayer-Brown 
     LLP: Carolyn Osolinik & Tim Keeler; Ted Kennedy Jr.; Howard 
     Berman; John Wodatch; Dan Brezinski; Ray Kelley; Tom Zampiri; 
     Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago: Marca Bristo; Alston & 
     Bird LLP: Jennifer Butler; Bob Kettlewell; Consortium for 
     Citizens with Disabilities; Disability Rights Education and 
     Defense Fund; Glover Park Group; Eva Szeli Robert Dinerstein 
     Hadar Harris Janet Lord Arlene Kantor Michael Stein; National 
     Council on Disability; National Council on Independent 
     Living; National Disability Leadership Alliance; United 
     Spinal Association and 21 Veteran organizations; United 
     States Chamber of Commerce; United States International 
     Council on Disabilities: David Morrissey, Esme Grant, Susie 
     Richard, Ellis Ballard, and Andrea Shettle.
       Ability Chicago; Access Alaska Inc.; Access Living; Access, 
     Inc.; ACCSES; Actionplay; ADAPT Delaware; Air Force Sergeants 
     Association; Air Force Women Officers Associated; Alliance 
     Center for Independence; American Academy of Child and 
     Adolescent Psychiatry; Advocating 4 Kids LLC; American 
     Academy of Pediatrics; American Association for Geriatric 
     Psychiatry; American Association on Health and Disability; 
     American Association on Intellectual and Developmental 
     Disabilities; American Association of People with 
     Disabilities; American Association for Psychosocial 
     Rehabilitation; American Civil Liberties Union; American 
     Council of the Blind.
       American Counseling Association; American Dance Therapy 
     Association; Anti-Defamation League; American Diabetes 
     Association; American Foundation for the Blind; American 
     Foundation for Suicide Prevention; American GI Forum; 
     American Group Psychotherapy Association; American Mental 
     Health Counselors Association; American Music Therapy 
     Association; American Network of Community Options and 
     Resources; American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 
     American Therapeutic Recreation Association; amfAR, the 
     Foundation for AIDS Research; AMVETS; APSE; ARC Gateway, 
     Inc.; Arc Northland; Arc of Lucas county; Arizona Bridge to 
     Independent Living (ABIL).
       Association for Assistive Technology Act Programs; 
     Association of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies; 
     Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living; 
     Association of United States Navy; Association of University 
     Centers on Disabilities (AUCD); Association on Higher 
     Education & Disability; Attention Deficit Disorder 
     Association; Auditory Sciences; Autism National Committee; 
     Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Autism Speaks; Bay Area 
     People First; Bay Cove Human Services, Inc.; Bazelon Center 
     for Mental Health Law; Bender Consulting Services, Inc.; Best 
     Buddies International, Inc.; BlazeSports America; Blinded 
     Veterans Association; BlueLaw International; Boston Center 
     for Independent Living.
       Brain Injury Association of America; Bridge II Sports; 
     Bridgewell; Burton Blatt Institute at Syracuse University; 
     California Association of the Deaf--Riverside Chapter; CA 
     State Council on Developmental Disabilities, Area Board 5; 
     California Foundation for Independent Living Centers; 
     California State Council on Developmental Disabilities; 
     Californians for Disability Rights, Inc.; CBM; Center for 
     Disability Rights; Center for Independent Living of South 
     Florida, Inc.; Center for Leadership in Disability; Center on 
     Disability and Community Inclusion; Challenged Conquistadors, 
     Inc.; Check and Connect Program--Central Lakes College; 
     Citizens for Patient Safety; Community Access Project 
     Somerville; Community Access Unlimited; Community Alliance 
     for the Ethical Treatment of Youth.
       Community Resources for Independent Living; Conference of 
     Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the 
     Deaf Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; Consortium 
     for Citizens with Disabilities; Consumer Advisory Committee; 
     Council for Exceptional Children; Council of State 
     Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation; CUNY Coalition 
     for Students with Disabilities; Daniel Jordan Fiddle 
     Foundation; DAWN Center for Independent Living; Deaf and Hard 
     of Hearing Alliance; Deaf Education And Families Project; 
     Delaware Developmental Disabilities Council; Delaware Family 
     Voices; Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance; 
     Developmental Disabilities Institute, Wayne State University; 
     Disabled American Veterans; Disability Connection/West 
     Michigan; Disability Help Center; Disability Law Center; 
     disABILITY LINK.
       Disability Partners; disABILITY Resource Center; Disability 
     Rights Coalition; Disability Rights Education and Defense 
     Fund; Disability Rights Fund; Disability Rights 
     International; Disability Rights Legal Center; disAbility 
     Solutions for Independent Living; Disabled In Action of 
     Metropolitan NYC; Disabled Rights Action Committee; Disabled 
     Sports USA; Division for Early Childhood of the Council for 
     Exceptional Children; Down Syndrome Association of Snohomish 
     County; Down Syndrome Association of West Michigan; Dream 
     Ahead the Empowerment Initiative; Dynamic Independence; East 
     Texas Center for Independent Living; Easter Seals; ED101 
     Inc.; Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities 
     International, Inc.

[[Page S7377]]

       Employment & Community Options; Epilepsy Foundation; Family 
     Voices; Fearless Nation PTSD Support; Federal Employees with 
     Disabilities (FEDs); FESTAC-USA (Festival of African Arts and 
     Culture); FHI n360; Fiesta Christian foundation Inc.; 504 
     Democratic Club; Foundations For Change, PC; Four Freedoms 
     Forum; Fox River Industries; FREED Center for Independent 
     Living; Friedman Place; G3ict; Gallaudet University; 
     GlobalPartnersUnited; Goodwill Industries International; 
     Greater Haverhill Newburyport; Handicap International; HEAL; 
     Hearing Loss Association of America.
       Hearing Loss Association of Los Angeles; Hesperian Health 
     Guides; Higher Education Consortium for Special Education; 
     Human Rights Watch; IDEA Infant Toddler Coordinators 
     Association; Independent Living, Inc.; Independent Living 
     Center of the Hudson Valley, Inc.; Independent Living Center 
     of the North Shore & Cape Ann, Inc; Institute for Community 
     Inclusion: U. MA Boston; Institute for Human Centered Design; 
     Institute on Human Development and Disability; Institute on 
     Disability and Public Policy (IDPP); Inter-American Institute 
     on Disability; International Ventilator Users Network; Iowa 
     Statewide Independent Living Council (SILC); Iraq and 
     Afghanistan Veterans of America; Jewish War Veterans; Johnson 
     County Board of Services; Joint National Association of 
     Persons with Disabilities; Just Advocacy of Mississippi.
       KEY Consumer Organization, Inc.; KIDZCARE School; L.E.A.N. 
     On Us; Lakeshore Foundation; Lakeside Curative Systems, Inc.; 
     LINC; Little People of America; Living Independence For 
     Everyone (LIFE) of Mississippi; Long Island Center for 
     Independent Living, Inc. (LICIL); Loudon ENDependence; 
     Mainstay Solutions LLC; Maryland Disability Law Center; 
     Massachusetts Down Syndrome Congress; Massachusetts Families 
     Organizing for Change; Medical Whistleblower Advocacy 
     Network; Medicol Inc.; Mental Health Action; Mental Health 
     America; MI Developmental Disabilities Council; Military 
     Officers Association of America.
       MindFreedom International; Mobility International USA; 
     Montana Independent Living Project; Multiethnic Advocates for 
     Cultural Competence, Inc.; National Alliance on Mental 
     Illness; National Association for Children's Behavioral 
     Health; National Association for Black Veterans; National 
     Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities; 
     National Association of County Behavioral Health and 
     Developmental Disability Directors; National Association of 
     Law Students with Disabilities (NALSWD); National Association 
     of School Psychologists; National Association of Social 
     Workers; National Association of State Directors of 
     Developmental Disabilities Services; National Association of 
     State Directors of Special Education; National Association of 
     State Head Injury Administrators; National Association of 
     State Mental Health Program Directors; National Association 
     of States United for Aging and Disabilities; National 
     Association of the Deaf; National Black Deaf Advocates, Inc.; 
     National Center for Environmental Health Strategies.
       National Center for Learning Disabilities; National 
     Coalition for Mental Health Recovery; National Council on 
     Independent Living; National Council for Community Behavioral 
     Healthcare; National Disability Rights Network; National Down 
     Syndrome Congress; National Down Syndrome Society; National 
     Dysautonomia Research Foundation; National Federation of the 
     Blind; National Federation of Families for Children's Mental 
     Health; National Guard Association of the United States; 
     National Health Law Program; National Military Family 
     Association; National Minority AIDS Council; National MS 
     Society--Ohio Chapters National MS Society, Pacific South 
     Coast Chapter; National Multiple Sclerosis Society; 
     National Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Capital 
     Chapter; National Rehabilitation Association; New York 
     State Independent Living Council; Next Step; NHMH--No 
     Health without Mental Health.
       Noble County ARC, Inc.; Northeast Arc; Not Dead Yet; Ohio 
     Association of County Boards; Serving People with 
     Developmental Disabilities; Ohio Statewide Independent Living 
     Council; Ohio Valley Goodwill Industries; Oklahoma 
     Association of Centers for Independent Living; Optimal 
     Beginnings, LC; Osteogenesis Imperfecta Foundation; PA Mental 
     Health Consumers' Association; Paralyzed Veterans of America; 
     Parent to Parent of NYS; Parent to Parent USA; Peer 
     Assistance Services, Inc.; Peppermint Ridge; Perkins; 
     PhilnthropyNow; Pineda Foundation for Youth; Polio Servivors 
     Association; PPI; Purity Care Investments; PXE International.
       Raising Special Kids; REACH Resource Centers On Independent 
     Living; Recovery Empowerment Network; Rehabilitation 
     International; RESNA Rolling Start Inc., Rose F. Kennedy 
     University Center for Excellence in Developmental 
     Disabilities; Sandhills Post-Polio Health Group; 
     Schizophrenia and Related Disorders; Alliance of America; 
     School Social Work Association of America; Self Advocacy 
     Council of Northern Illinois; Sindh Disabled Development 
     Society; SoCal ASPE; Social Assistance and Rehabilitation; 
     for the Physically Vulnerable; (SARPV); Socio Economic 
     Development; Alliance (SEDA); Southeast Alaska Independent 
     Living; SPEAK Consulting LLC; Special Needs Advocacy Network; 
     Special Olympics; Spina Bifida Association.
       Statewide Independent Living Council; TASH Team of 
     Advocates for Special Kids; (TASK); Teacher Education 
     Division of the Council for Exceptional Children; Tennessee 
     Disability Coalition; Tri-State Downs Syndrome Society; The 
     Ability Center of Greater Toledo; The American Legion; The 
     Arc-Jefferson, Clear Creek & Gilpin Counties; The Arc 
     Arapahoe & Douglas; The Arc California; The Arc Cedar Valley; 
     The Arc Michigan; The Arc Noble County Foundation; The Arc of 
     Bristol County; The Arc of Colorado; The Arc of Dickinson; 
     The Arc of Fort Bend County; The Arc of Greater Pittsburgh; 
     The Arc of Illinois; The Arc of Iowa.
       The Arc of Massachusetts; The Arc of Northern Virginia; The 
     Arc of Opportunity in North Central Massachusetts; The Arc of 
     the U.S.; The Arc of Virginia; The Arc of Toombs County; The 
     Arc Western Wayne; The California Institute for Mental 
     Health; The Center of Rights of Parents with Disabilities; 
     The Jewish Federations of North America; The Joseph P. 
     Kennedy, Jr. Foundation; The National Council on Independent 
     Living; The National Center of the Blind Illinois; The 
     Starkloff Disability Institute; Three Rivers Center for 
     Independent Living; Topeka Independent Living; Resource 
     Center; Touchpoint Group, LLC; Tourette Syndrome Association; 
     Treatment Communities of America; Tri count4y ILC.
       Tri-County Association of the Deaf, Inc., Twin Ports Post 
     Polio Network; United Cerebral Palsy; United Spinal 
     Association; U.S. Business Leadership Network; United States 
     International Council on Disabilities; Utah Assistive 
     Technology Foundation; Vermont Center for Independent Living; 
     Vermont Family Network; Veterans for Common Sense; Veterans 
     of Foreign Wars; Veterans of Modern Warfare; VetsFirst, a 
     program of United Spinal Association; Vietnam Veterans of 
     American; Voices of the Heart Inc; Whirlwind Wheelchair 
     International; Womens Refugee Commission; WORK, Inc., World 
     Institute on Disability; Wounded Warrior Project; Wyoming 
     Institute for Disabilities.

  Mr. KERRY. Over 328 veterans and disability organizations, all of our 
veterans organizations, who deal with people with disabilities and 
challenges support this treaty and believe it will make a difference.
  So when the Senator says: I don't believe it will make a difference, 
every working member of the disabilities community disagrees with the 
Senator.
  I would just say to him respectfully that the facts are clear. He 
said this ties our hands. It doesn't tie our hands. Senator Lee came to 
the floor earlier, and he agreed this doesn't require any change of 
U.S. law.
  So I would say to my friend, there is no tying of the hands. We 
understand the fears people have, but I think it is important to try to 
decide this on the basis of fact.
  I yield to the Senator on his time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. As per the previous request, without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. First of all, I want to say to my colleague from 
Massachusetts that I very much have enjoyed the conversations we have 
had, and perhaps more so when we have been in disagreement because I 
think we have brought out a number of important points on a variety of 
issues. So I always appreciate his views. Secondly, since the Senator 
has specifically referred to the points I have made, let me just 
respond in one way.
  I don't gainsay the argument that people who have a deep belief in 
trying to pursue a particular human right or other goal believe that 
getting together in the international community and talking about these 
things is a useful exercise. It is hard to argue in the abstract with 
that proposition, so I can understand the letters that would be 
written.
  The hard reality is, however, that there are nation states such as 
China that do like to sign up to these organizations and gain the 
reputation for doing good things while, in fact, not doing things, as I 
pointed out. So to some extent it can serve the opposite goal of giving 
cover to countries that really have no intention of acting in good 
faith or in good ways that we have demonstrated as the United States, 
and that is one of the problems here.
  I do acknowledge, and I will not use any more of the Senator's time, 
but when one of two things is true, either it is fairly meaningless or 
it is really meaningful. I don't think that we can make both arguments 
as arguments in support of our signing up to the treaty.
  Mr. KERRY. Well, we obviously differ on that.
  Let me emphasize the importance of the 328 groups, and I have 
submitted that for the Record.
  We are going to vote in a few minutes, and we are going to vote on a 
treaty that I regret to say some people

[[Page S7378]]

are making controversial when, in fact, it really isn't controversial.
  What this treaty says is very simple: It just says that people can't 
discriminate against the disabled. It says other countries have to do 
what we did 22 years ago when we set the example for the world and 
passed the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  In four simple words, this treaty says to other countries that don't 
respect the rights of the disabled: Be more like us. That is what we 
are asking people to do. It doesn't require any changes to American 
law, zero. This has no tying of the hands of America. There isn't one 
law in the United States that would be negatively affected. But it will 
push, it will leverage, it will require other countries by their 
commitment to be held accountable to the standard that we have set and 
take our gold standard and extend it to the rest of the world.
  There are three reasons I have heard that we can't do this. When I 
hear them, I am reminded of what I learned when I was a prosecutor, 
which was quite a few years ago now. I learned: If the facts are 
against you, then argue the law. If the law is against you, then argue 
the facts. If both are against you, just make it up.
  Well, that is exactly what is happening here. Neither the law nor the 
facts support any argument that has been made on the other side of this 
treaty. Accordingly, we are facing an entirely fictitious set of 
arguments--on abortion, on homeschooling, on lameduck sessions. All of 
their arguments have been contradicted by the facts in the law, and let 
me document that.
  This treaty is based on the Americans with Disabilities Act. We 
passed that 20 years ago.
  The father of the act is sitting here, the Senator from Iowa. In all 
those 20 years, has any child been separated from a parent because of 
the ADA? No. Has homeschooling been hurt? No. In fact it has grown and 
is flourishing across the Nation.
  How is it possible a treaty, that according to our Supreme Court 
offers no recourse, no change in American law, no access to American 
courts, how is it possible that such a treaty could threaten anybody in 
our country? The answer is simple: It doesn't and it can't.
  Well, let's go through the arguments one by one. First, they say it 
would undermine our sovereignty. I have heard several people suggest 
that, the laws governing the disabled. Well, that is wrong. Senator Lee 
just admitted it doesn't affect any law in the United States. All it 
does is create a committee on the rights of persons with disabilities.
  What can this committee do? All it can do is review reports and make 
a suggestion. Are we scared, in the United States of America, of 
someone making a suggestion to us about how we might do something? It 
has no recourse in the court, no legal standing.
  The Foreign Relations Committee even included language in the 
resolution of advice and consent to make it crystal clear. What are we 
afraid of? That the committee would give us this advice?
  The second misconception is that this will allow the Federal 
Government, acting under U.N. instructions, to determine what is best 
for children with disabilities. Again, that is just flat wrong. The 
treaty does not give the Federal Government or any State government any 
new powers with respect to children with disabilities. It doesn't 
change the balance of power between Federal and State government. It 
doesn't require any change to existing State or Federal law.

  The Justice Department, former Republican Attorney General Dick 
Thornburgh, testified before the Foreign Relations Committee that any 
assertion to the contrary is incorrect. Our committee even included 
language in the resolution of advice and consent to absolutely 
crystallize those limitations.
  Finally, there are those who argue that a lameduck session is an 
inappropriate time for Senators to consider this treaty. Well, my 
colleagues, please, since the 1970s alone, the Senate has approved 
treaties during lameduck sessions a total of 19 times. There is nothing 
special or different about a lameduck. It is a session of the Congress. 
Just as we are going to consider important fiscal matters, we should 
consider other important matters.
  Our constituents expect us to do our jobs. There is no difference 
between a lameduck, a dead duck, or a regular duck. We ought to be here 
doing our jobs.
  More than any of the straw men, though, that we would have to deal 
with in this debate, there is, in fact, something much bigger at stake. 
This treaty and this vote will say a great deal about who we are in the 
Senate and who we are as a country.
  In the nearly 30 years I have been here, I think this is the first 
time I have seen a former majority leader of the Senate come to the 
Senate floor for a vote. It is certainly the first time that I have 
seen it happen when he had every right to be at home at age 89 taking 
care of his health, but that is not Bob Dole.
  Almost 70 years ago, when he came home to Kansas from the 
battlefields of Italy in a full body cast, people said that Bob would 
never have to work another day in his life. That is what they said; he 
was a hero; he had made his contribution. But Bob Dole worked every 
single day to stand, to walk, and to use his arms again. He made 
himself get out of that bed, and he made himself a public servant and a 
U.S. Senator and the Republican nominee for President in 1996. But his 
greatest pride was passing the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  Bob Dole, why is he here? He is not here because he is here to 
advocate for the United Nations, and certainly this man who served his 
country is not here because he doesn't want to defend the sovereignty 
of the United States of America. He is here because he wants to know 
that other countries will come to treat the disabled the way we do.
  He is here because he wants to know that when a disabled American 
veteran, our wounded warriors, travel overseas, they are treated with 
the same dignity and respect they receive at home. That is why an 89-
year-old veteran, 1 week removed from Bethesda Naval Hospital, comes 
back to the Senate on an early December day. Because it matters.
  What we do in the Senate matters not just to us but to people all 
across the globe, and maybe some people here need to be reminded of 
that. This is not about politics, this is not about ideology, this is 
about people.
  This treaty helps thousands of vets, men and women, who paid the 
price of devotion to our country with their limbs--with their limbs--
and they struggle every day to get up, button their shirts, get out of 
the house. Some of them struggle to be able to share in life as all of 
us are able to share in it.
  I met one of them yesterday, Army Afghan vet Dan Berschinski, a 
double amputee as a result of the war in Afghanistan. He has fought 
back, and he has recovered enough to create a small business. Here is 
what he said, this West Point grad of 2007:

       I'm proud to be able to walk using prosthetic legs. Yet 
     obstacles that might seem inconsequential to the fully able-
     bodied, like sidewalk curbs and stairs, take on a whole new 
     meaning for veterans like me who struggle to walk, or use a 
     wheelchair. Very fortunately for me, the United States leads 
     the world in accessibility and equality of opportunity for 
     the disabled. Unfortunately, the advantages granted here at 
     home--that allow people like me to live fulfilling, 
     independent lives--don't exist in much of the rest of the 
     world.
       Eight months after being wounded in combat, and while still 
     a patient at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, I joined--

  And I am speaking for him--

       a few friends in a trip to South Africa to watch the World 
     Cup.
       There I found myself in a different country, with no legs, 
     a brand-new wheelchair and a lot of apprehension. While I 
     should have been enjoying this once-in-a-lifetime trip, I was 
     constantly worried about my ability to get around. Would the 
     restaurant have an accessible bathroom or would I have to go 
     without it? Would my wheelchair be able to fit in the hotel 
     doorway or would I need to be carried into the lobby? Those 
     are the kinds of questions we take for granted here in 
     America, but, unfortunately, the accessibility measures we 
     enjoy here simply aren't present in many other countries.

  That is why Bob Dole and CPT Dan Berschinski want us to approve this 
treaty. I have heard nothing from the other side that outweighs the 
reality of that consideration for not just veterans but all persons 
with disabilities.
  What is at stake here is big. The outcome here will not, despite the 
fear, change one election here in the Senate. It is not going to decide 
one of the primaries that I fear are distorting the

[[Page S7379]]

politics of our country. But you know what, it will decide whether some 
people live or die in another country, where there is no accountability 
and only United States values and standards are the difference to the 
prospects of someone with a disability.
  In some countries children are disposed of--killed--because they have 
a disability. Our treaty can actually help prevent that. In some 
countries children do not get to go to school and certainly have no 
prospects of a future simply because they are born with a disability. 
This treaty will help offer hope where there is none. The United States 
could actually sit at the table and make the difference for people with 
disabilities because we are willing to push our values and hold other 
nations accountable to meet our standards--the gold standard of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act.
  Mr. President, I have heard some of my Republican colleagues talk 
many times about making the rest of the world more like America. I hate 
to think that now, when we have an opportunity to do that, they will 
retreat from that core conviction and oppose a treaty modeled on the 
United States' example which has no recourse in American courts and no 
effect on American law.
  This treaty isn't about American behavior, except to the degree that 
it influences other countries to be more like us. This treaty is about 
the behavior of other countries and their willingness to raise their 
treatment of people with disabilities to our level. It is that simple. 
This treaty isn't about changing America, it is a treaty to change the 
world to be more like America.
  So why join, I have heard my colleagues ask several times. If it 
doesn't have recourse in the law, why join? I will tell you why: 
Because we can sit at the table and affect the lives of our citizens by 
pushing other countries upwards; because we gain credibility and 
accelerate change through our advocacy by being part of a process; 
because it is good for American businesses, which can sell products and 
services as other nations raise their standards and need our expertise 
to meet their goals. That is why, incidentally, the United States 
Chamber of Commerce supports this treaty as do a huge number of 
businesses.
  Why support it? Because George H. W. Bush started this process and 
President George W. Bush signed the treaty to participate in it. And 
because, in the end, this treaty and our participation in it--and this 
is the most important--can improve the quality of life for people with 
disabilities. To join it is to keep faith with the men and women who 
have suffered grievous disability in defense of our Nation, and we owe 
them nothing less. This treaty is not about changing America, it is 
about America changing the world.
  But a vote here is a test of this institution. This vote is a test of 
whether the Senate, which passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting 
Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, is still capable of 
voting to change things, not to mention sending a message that could 
change the world.
  I ask my colleagues to do for the world what they have done for 
America, walk down the aisle here for millions everywhere who cannot 
walk and make a statement; raise your voice and vote for millions who 
are voiceless in their own lands; stand for those who cannot stand for 
themselves. This is not about the United Nations, this is about common 
humanity. This vote is to test to see whether the Senate will stand for 
those who cannot see or hear and whether Senators can hear the truth 
and see the facts.
  Please don't let Captain Berschinski down. Don't let Senator Bob Dole 
down. Most importantly, don't let the Senate and the country down. 
Approve this treaty.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Resolution 
of Advice and Consent to Ratification of the Convention on the Rights 
of Persons with Disabilities.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 219 Ex.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--38

     Alexander
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 61, the nays are 
38. Two-thirds of the Senators present not having voted in the 
affirmative, the resolution of ratification is not agreed to.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we hope shortly after the caucuses are ended 
today that we will have a vote on final passage of the Defense 
authorization bill. The managers have a few more amendments they are 
going to try to clear, but I think very quickly after the caucus we 
will have a vote. ``Very quickly'' around here is kind of a relative 
term, but we hope to do it as soon as we can.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________