Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 154 (Tuesday, December 4, 2012)

[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.

____________________