[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15451-15468]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

         CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the treaty.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senators Kerry and Lugar are managing this 
most important treaty. We are now in executive session. We are going to 
take a couple of hours to see who wants to offer amendments. Senator 
Lugar, Senator Kerry or their staffs should be contacted to indicate 
what, if any, amendments they wish to offer. So that being the case, we 
hope that by, let's say 5 o'clock, we will have an idea what the 
universe of amendments, if any, would be.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be a period of debate only on the 
treaty until 5 p.m. today, with that time equally divided and 
controlled between the proponents and opponents, and that time actually 
be controlled by Senators Kerry and Lugar, and that I be recognized at 
5 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me just reiterate--I think Senator 
Barrasso is here and Senator Lee, and others; Senator Kyl is also 
here--we look forward to working over the course of the next few hours 
with our colleagues to try to come to some understanding of the 
amendments here.
  One of the things that we promised--and Senator Reid has altered his 
approach to this in order to try to accommodate our colleagues--is to 
make certain we are not closing people out and there is no effort to 
try to limit the debate.
  I do think, by virtue of the work done in committee and otherwise, 
there is a limit to where we need to go in terms of amendments. So I am 
perfectly happy--together with Senator Lugar--to work with our 
colleagues with respect to a reservation or an understanding or a 
declaration that they believe needs to be tweaked. We will see what we 
can do with respect to the number of amendments we want to bring.
  Let me just say to my colleagues that this treaty should not be 
controversial. Senator Robert Dole, President George H.W. Bush, former 
Republican Attorney General Richard Thornburg, and current colleagues 
Senator Barrasso, Senator Moran, and others have all supported and 
believe we ought to move forward with this treaty in a bipartisan 
manner.
  I would say to my colleagues that in the wake of the election, this 
is the first legislative effort we are making on the floor of the 
Senate. It would be my hope that we could reflect that we heard the 
American people, who asked us to do their business and to not fall into 
the pattern of partisan divide, of gridlock that has so characterized 
the Senate over the course of the last few years. This is our 
opportunity to prove that the exceptionalism we are all proud to talk 
about with respect to our country is defined by our doing exceptional 
work.
  This is an opportunity to do that. We have an opportunity to rise 
with common purpose and make a difference, not just here in the United 
States, frankly, but most predominately make a difference in the rest 
of the world as to how people with disabilities are treated. I believe 
the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is an 
opportunity for us to embrace the truth in legislating and to separate

[[Page 15452]]

ourselves from ideological and/or partisan efforts to distort that 
truth or to prevent, actually, an alternative reality, which is what 
happens in some cases.
  Our colleagues, I am told, want to approach this in good faith. We 
welcome that. We look forward to sitting down with them, working 
through what amendments we think we should vote on, and perhaps we can 
even work together to tweak one of the understandings or declarations 
in an appropriate way. We would like to make progress. I believe we can 
get this done. It will be a good moment for the Senate when we do.
  I know we have not always agreed on all the issues and certainly not 
even with respect to this treaty. What I ask of my colleagues is this: 
Those who oppose this or who are inclined to oppose it, I would say 
step back and take a look at this treaty and measure the report 
language, the report the committee put out, and measure the transmittal 
letter of the President of the United States and the Secretary of 
State, and what they have said to the Senate is really at stake in this 
treaty.
  I ask my colleagues before they come to the floor to carefully check 
the factual foundation of this treaty because we have continually heard 
some outside groups characterizing it in ways that simply do not meet 
the facts, that do not withstand scrutiny when measured against the law 
of the United States or international law or the law of the States. 
This treaty does not require any change whatsoever to American law. 
None. Zero. There is no impact on American law. There is no ability in 
this treaty for anybody to gain some new right here in the United 
States. No individual, American or foreign, gains any access to the 
courts in an effort to litigate some component of this treaty because 
the treaty specifically denies people any access to the courts. It is 
what is called--it is not self-executing. As a consequence of not being 
self-executing, it gives no right to any litigation.
  So the obvious question from somebody might be, well, why do we want 
to do it then? What is the benefit to us? The benefit is very 
significant in terms of our diplomacy, in terms of the rights of 
Americans when they travel abroad, Americans with disabilities.
  Now, our bottom line--I think our shared bottom line--Senator Lugar, 
Senator McCain, Senator Barrasso, Senator Moran, and others who support 
this treaty believe this will extend the protections to millions of 
disabled Americans when they leave our shores.
  I thank Majority Leader Reid for being willing to bring this treaty 
to the floor at this moment in time when there is obviously a lot on 
Senators' minds, a lot of business before the Senate. But I believe 
this treaty will be deemed to have the requisite votes ultimately to 
show that this is, in fact, in the best interests of our country.
  This treaty has been described as a modest treaty, but the impact of 
Senate ratification is actually far from modest. The impact will echo 
around the world. Why? Because the United States of America is the 
world's gold standard with respect to the treatment of people with 
disabilities.
  This has been a long journey for us in the United States. We have 
gone through many different steps leading ultimately to the Americans 
with Disabilities Act, of which we celebrated the 20th anniversary. Our 
own colleague, Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa, was the leader on that 
landmark piece of legislation, together with my former colleague 
Senator Ted Kennedy. They moved this country forward in great steps so 
that we welcomed people with disabilities into mainstream America.
  The impact of this treaty is to take that gold standard and extend it 
to countries that have never heard of disability rights or that have 
never changed their laws to accommodate people with disabilities. This 
will have a profound impact. Most significantly, it will have a 
profound impact on those who have served our country, those 5.5 million 
disabled American veterans who may want to travel abroad, work abroad, 
go to another country to study, who will as a result of this gain 
lifestyle benefits and accommodations they otherwise might never have.
  Now, 125 nations have already signed this treaty and are living by 
it. We have not. We were the principal architect. Our laws are the 
model. But once again the United States has been holding back while 
other countries fill the vacuum we have left behind.
  I wish to share with my colleagues a statement by Senator Bob Dole, 
who was as deeply committed to this cause as Senator Ted Kennedy, and 
he was committed to the original Americans with Disabilities Act. 
Senator Dole today, as we know, is in Bethesda Hospital. I do not know 
if he is listening at this time. I met with him not so many months ago. 
We talked about this and other issues. He is a great patriot. He was a 
great leader here in the Senate. I think his words ought to be listened 
to by our colleagues. Here is what he says:

       It was an exceptional group that I joined during World War 
     II, which no one joins by personal choice. It is a group that 
     neither respects nor discriminates by age, sex, wealth, 
     education, skin color, religious beliefs, political party, 
     power or prestige. That group, Americans with disabilities, 
     has grown in size ever since. So, therefore, has the 
     importance of maintaining access for people with disabilities 
     to mainstream American life, whether it's access to a job, or 
     education, or registering to vote.

  Senator Dole went on to say:

       U.S. ratification of the [Convention on the Rights of 
     Persons with Disabilities] will improve physical, 
     technological and communication access outside the U.S., 
     thereby helping to ensure that Americans--particularly, many 
     thousands of disabled American veterans--have equal 
     opportunities to live, work, and travel abroad.

  In testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee this year, 
Special Adviser for International Disability Rights at the State 
Department Judith Heumann recounted in personal and searing terms why 
this issue is so important. She drew from the experience of her own 
life.

       . . . As a child, I did not have the benefit of accessible 
     communities, inclusive schools, or accessible transportation. 
     Without even simple curb cuts, I wheeled in the streets 
     amongst oncoming traffic. I could not ride our buses and 
     trains. I was not allowed to go to school until I was 9 years 
     old, and then received poor quality education, segregated 
     from the rest of my peers. When I applied for my first job as 
     a teacher, I was initially denied my certification simply 
     because I could not walk.

  Today she is advocating on behalf of the State Department for this 
treaty. She summed up her interests in this compelling way. She said:

       U.S. citizens with disabilities frequently face barriers 
     when they travel, conduct business, study, serve, reside or 
     retire overseas. With our extensive domestic experience in 
     promoting equality and inclusion of persons with 
     disabilities, the United States is uniquely positioned to 
     help interested countries understand how to effectively 
     comply with their obligations under the Convention . . . 
     However, the fact that we have yet to ratify the Disabilities 
     Convention is frequently raised by foreign officials, and 
     deflects from what should be center stage: how their own 
     record of promoting disability rights could be improved.

  She goes on to say:

       Though I take great pride in the U.S. record, it is frankly 
     difficult to make best use of the `bully pulpit' to challenge 
     disabilities rights violations on behalf of Americans with 
     disabilities and others when we have not ratified the 
     Convention.

  America's history--all of its history--has been marked by the long 
struggle for equality. It is a struggle that ought to inspire all of us 
to fight on behalf of many others whose voices too often are ignored or 
forgotten. Maybe the movie about Lincoln today would really rekindle in 
a lot of Americans that best sense of what is worth fighting for and 
what is worth achieving in public life.
  For me, that vision of fighting for those people whose views are 
ignored or forgotten means having and holding on to a vision of a 
society that really works for the common good, where individual rights 
and freedoms are connected to our responsibilities to each other. All 
Americans have an inherent right to be treated as equal citizens of our 
Nation. But the historic march toward a better, fairer America can only 
come about if we are willing to make those less fortunate than 
ourselves the focus of our work. And this is a march that goes on for 
all of us, and it must

[[Page 15453]]

go on because without it nothing changes.
  One thing is clear: The disabilities convention is not an issue that 
pits Republicans against Democrats--Senator Lugar is here, Senator 
McCain, and others--nor is it an issue that should divide us along any 
partisan lines. The Foreign Relations Committee approved this treaty in 
a strong bipartisan vote on July 26, and that marked the 22nd 
anniversary of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act.
  I am grateful to the majority leader, former Majority Leader Dole, 
and to President George Herbert Walker Bush, who joined a bipartisan 
group of Senators, whose names I have listed, in advocating for this 
important cause. I think our former colleague Senator Kennedy would be 
very proud if he could see us coming together today in support of a 
convention just as we did two decades ago with the ADA.
  This treaty is personal to many Members here, to Senator Durbin, to 
Senator Harkin, to Senator Lugar, and others. Members from both sides 
of the aisle have worked hard to bring us to the floor today. I believe 
the questions have been answered. I think the report and the Record 
could not be more clear. The only question that remains is whether we 
are going to be remembered for approving the Disabilities Convention 
and reconnecting with our best traditions or finding an excuse to delay 
and defy our core responsibility as Senators.
  I have received countless letters and heard from nearly 300 
organizations on this issue. There is a long list--and I am not going 
to read all through those 300--every single major military organization 
supports this treaty; the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Air 
Force Women Officers Association, the American GI Forum, the Blinded 
Veterans Association, the Division for Early Childhood of the Council 
for Exceptional Children Disabled American Veterans, the Military 
Officers Association of America, the National Guard Association of the 
United States, the National Military Family Association, Paralyzed 
Veterans of America, and then a long list, Veterans for Common Sense, 
Veterans of Foreign Wars, Veterans of Modern Warfare, Vietnam Veterans 
of America, countless other faith-based associations, the Methodist 
General Board of Church and Society, the United Church of Christ. You 
could run through a huge number of faith-based organizations, a huge 
number of human rights and rights organizations from all over our 
country. I urge Senators to check with the rights organizations and 
others in their own States. Almost every State in the Union--the 
Kentucky Protection and Advocacy Association, the Michigan Protection 
and Advocacy Services. You could run a long list of people who believe 
the time has come.
  I would ask unanimous consent that the full list of these supporters 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           USICD Support List

       Ability Chicago.
       Access Alaska Inc.
       Access Living.
       Access, Inc.
       ACCSES.
       Actionplay.
       ADAPT Delawarenb.
       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 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.
       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 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.
       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.
       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.
       Employment & Community Options.
       Epilepsy Foundation.
       Family Voices.
       Fearless Nation PTSD Support.
       Federal Employees with Disabilities (FEDs).

[[Page 15454]]

       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).
       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.
       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 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 Health Law Program.
       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, LLC.
       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.
       PhilanthropyNow.
       Pineda Foundation for Youth.
       Polio Survivors 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 APSE.
       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 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 US.
       The Arc of Virginia.
       The Arc of Toombs County.
       The Arc Western Wayne.
       The California Institute for Mental Health.
       The Center for 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.
       U.S. International Council on Disabilities.
       Utah Assistive Technology Foundation.
       Vermont Center for Independent Living.
       Vermont Family Network.
       Voices of the Heart Inc.
       Whirlwind Wheelchair International.
       Women's Refugee Commission.
       WORK, Inc.
       World Institute on Disability.
       Wyoming Institute for Disabilities.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, across the developing world, persons with 
disabilities face remarkable indignities and prejudice on a daily 
basis. They are prevented from attending schools, they are subject to 
discriminatory hiring practices, they are often unable to enter a 
public building, unable to safely cross a street, unable to even ride a 
public bus. There are an estimated 650 million people in the world 
today who

[[Page 15455]]

live with a disability. Some 36 million of our fellow Americans are 
disabled, and veterans are filing disability claims at an unprecedented 
level. There is a challenge in these statistics, and it is a challenge 
to the decency and humanity of every Member of the Senate.
  When a disabled child in a developing country is killed at birth 
because of their disability, that is a challenge to every single one of 
us, as Americans and as citizens of the world.
  When a pervasive cultural stereotype forces disabled people to 
abandon their dreams and toil away in crushing poverty, it should 
offend the sensibilities of everybody in the Senate, and we have a 
chance to do something about that. When our wounded warriors are 
prevented from living, working, studying, or traveling abroad because 
of a lack of basic physical access, that violates our sacred oath.
  I urge my colleagues to go to the report and read the testimony of 
people who have talked about how things have changed in certain 
countries because countries signed on to this treaty to try to reach 
the American gold standard. Each of these episodes that denies people 
those opportunities takes a little piece of our humanity.
  I think our identity, I think our exceptionalism is personally on the 
line in this vote. I know some have said we don't need this treaty. 
Some have even argued it requires a change in law when it doesn't 
require any change in the law.
  To paraphrase Senator Moynihan, who reminded us often, everybody is 
entitled to his or her opinion, but you are not entitled to your own 
facts, I simply say to my colleagues, there are basic facts with 
respect to this treaty, and we will argue them over the course of the 
next hour and perhaps days.
  I want to share the most important facts right upfront. I said this 
earlier, and I am going to repeat it. This treaty--I hope we won't hear 
this debate on the floor of the Senate, because the text, the legal and 
documentary text of the report language and the treaty and the 
transmittal language and the interpretations of the Justice Department 
all make it clear, this treaty does not require any change in American 
law. None. Testimony from everybody, including former Republican 
Attorney General Thornburgh, makes that clear.
  In addition to that, to make certain we address the concerns of our 
colleagues so that we reinforce that notion, the Foreign Relations 
Committee included additional, multiple reservations, understandings, 
and declarations in the resolution of advice and consent, including one 
that ensures that the treaty cannot be relied on as a cause of action 
in State or Federal courts. When we ratify this, we will ratify it with 
a clear understanding that there is no right of action in America's 
State or Federal courts.
  We have also heard the argument that the convention could somehow 
change U.S. domestic law with respect to abortion. Again, let me make 
it as clear as I know how: This is absolutely, positively, factually 
inaccurate. The convention does not mandate or prohibit any particular 
medical procedure, heart surgery, brain surgery, abortion, or anything 
else, and we made that crystal clear in the understandings of 
ratification.
  What it does require is something very simple. It requires that 
governments do not discriminate against the disabled in anything that 
they do allow or prohibit. If you allow a procedure, you must allow it 
for the disabled and the nondisabled alike. If you prohibit a 
procedure, you must prohibit it for the disabled and the nondisabled 
alike. That is all this treaty does, but it is powerful and critical to 
those millions of people who are discriminated against otherwise. The 
Foreign Relations Committee included language in the resolution of 
advice and consent to clarify what I just said.
  Some have also tried to make the argument that the disabilities 
committee created by this treaty--there is a committee that is 
created--is somehow going to intrude on the lives of Americans. Again, 
our good President John Adams once said that facts are stubborn things. 
Well, they are stubborn, they don't go away. The facts are that this 
treaty, in this committee that it creates, has no power, except to make 
a report to put people on notice so they can then consider what they 
might want to do. It doesn't require any action, it doesn't compel any 
action, it has no authority to do so. It simply sheds the light of day 
on what may or may not be happening somewhere so people can then nudge 
and push and jawbone and use the pressure of public scrutiny to 
hopefully change behavior.
  By terms of the treaty, this committee has exceedingly limited 
powers. It can simply accept and review a country report and make a 
recommendation. That is it--that recommendation--nothing else.
  The fact is, here in the United States we are blessed because we 
already live up to the principles of this treaty. Our laws, including 
the ADA, are more than sufficient to compel compliance with this treaty 
from day one. That is why nothing is going to change here at home 
except for those people with disabilities who can turn to their family 
and say, you know, I can go take that job over here or I can travel 
over there or I could go study over there, because the standards are 
going to rise and people will be able to do that.
  For decades, I am proud to say, the world has looked to the United 
States as a leader on disability rights, and it is hard to believe that 
actually some people are now beginning to question our resolve on 
something that we were the leader on. That is disappointing, I think, 
to everybody who has been affiliated with this effort over the years.
  Let me quote John Lancaster. John is a disabled Vietnam veteran who 
testified in support of this treaty and who challenged us all to do the 
right thing. His words are stark and simple. He said:

       As someone who volunteered and laid my life on the line for 
     freedom, rights, dignity . . . now to have this whole debate 
     that we're not willing to espouse [the Disabilities 
     Convention] to the rest of the world? That we're not willing 
     to walk the talk in international circles? To step up to the 
     forum and advocate . . . We aspire to what's in this 
     Convention. That is what we are about as a nation: including 
     people, giving them freedom, giving them rights, giving them 
     the opportunity to work, to learn, to participate. Isn't that 
     what we are about? Isn't that what we want the rest of the 
     world to be about? Well, if we aren't willing to say that is 
     a good thing and to say it formally, what are we about?

  That is a powerful statement from a man who served his country.
  The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is more 
than a piece of paper. It is not an empty promise. It is a reflection 
of our values as a nation. It is a lever, it is an inspiration, it is a 
diplomatic tool. It creates the ability to change life for people in 
many other countries, and that is what America is about.
  John Lancaster closed out his testimony saying:

       From a veteran perspective, I think we have much to gain 
     from the improved accessibility of the world. Today some 
     disabled soldiers and Marines remain on active duty in spite 
     of their disability, continuing to serve their country. These 
     servicemembers should be afforded the same rights outside the 
     United States as they enjoy here. For a disabled veteran 
     working abroad, the adoption of disability rights and 
     implementation of disability laws allows them to do their 
     jobs more effectively and reaffirms what they served for: 
     liberty and the opportunity to participate.

  He closed by saying we have a moral obligation to one another to 
serve our great country and to show what we represent to all mankind.
  When he returned from Vietnam, John struggled for years with 
environmental obstacles, employment discrimination. I think we owe it 
to him and to millions of Americans facing a similar plight today to 
fulfill our constitutional responsibilities and get the job done.
  When George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into 
law, he did so with the hope that it was going to foster full and equal 
access to civic, economic, and social life for people with disabilities 
in America. Senator Kennedy, who played an important role, said, ``This 
act has the potential to become one of the great civil rights laws of 
our generation . . . It is a bill of rights for the disabled, and 
America will be a better and fairer nation because of it.''

[[Page 15456]]

  That was the spirit that animated the passage of the ADA, and it is 
the same spirit that has inspired a bipartisan group of Senators to 
work tirelessly to pass this convention.
  For far too long persons with disabilities have been left in the 
shadows or left to fend for themselves. We must resolve again as 
Senators and as citizens to fight for our principles. It isn't a 
question of time. It is a question of priorities--a question of 
willpower, not capacity. This treaty reflects our highest ideals as a 
nation, and now is the time to act.
  In closing, I say to colleagues: When there is an opportunity for 
change, America must be there to help--to keep faith, and to use our 
voice to support those who are striving for reform.
  This really is one of those moments the Senate was intended to live 
up to--and it demands leadership and a willingness to find the common 
ground.
  If discrimination against persons with disabilities is to stop--and 
it must--then we must stop it. We all know that restoring the full 
measure of rights to persons with disabilities is not just a lofty 
goal. It's a core value here at home and an imperative abroad. But it 
is not enough to know how things ought to be. Our job is to ask how we 
can make them so.
  After all, if the American people said anything in this election 
year, it is that Members of Congress need to work not just on their 
side but side by side. It is the only way we can fully complete our 
constitutional duties. It is the only way--in a divided country, at a 
time of heightened partisan tensions--that ideology will yield to 
common sense. And it is the only way that we will approve the 
disabilities convention and live out the truth behind those timeless 
and inimitable words: that all of us are created equal.
  I yield to the Senator from Indiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the chairman of our committee, the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, has expressed the case well 
and strongly. Let me say in simplicity that as we enjoyed hearing of 
the rights of persons with disabilities, we have learned that 
essentially the United States has an opportunity for leadership for an 
expression of our idealism with regard to the care and treatment and 
concern for disabled persons in our country and the world.
  If we ratify this treaty, we will join with other nations who meet 
annually and will receive every 4 years reports from the various 
countries that are involved as to the progress they have made. They 
compare notes. They learn really how the disabled are treated. Our 
belief is that we are the gold standard and that there are many 
countries that would like to know technically how people are treated in 
the United States and what sort of investment would be required in 
those countries.
  Having said that, we should also say, very frankly, that the 
committee or this governing aspect has no ability whatsoever to create 
law--either State, local, or Federal--in the United States of America 
or to compel Americans to do anything, literally. So we have an 
opportunity to be advocates of our idealism, and we have an opportunity 
to listen to others and perhaps to gain new insight in this body about 
how, along with our fellows in the House, to proceed. I think that is 
very important.
  Now, having said all that, I would say that likewise the committee 
did understand there are considerable anxieties in our country about 
this situation. I would say it is conceivable the debate we have today 
will illustrate that some Members of our body have valid concerns about 
the convention. I think it is clear that we will cite again and again 
our domestic legislation, such as the ADA and the IDEA, which 
constitutes the most comprehensive and effective standards to advance 
the rights and provide equal opportunities for individuals with 
disabilities.
  One of the arguments by the administration in support of Senate 
ratification is that by becoming a member we will be able to increase 
our global credibility. It is argued this increased credibility with 
other countries will be beneficial in exporting and promoting 
standards. The executive branch also argued that when officials have 
bilateral conversations advising other governments about improving 
standards for their disabled citizens, officials often question why the 
United States is not a party now to the convention. Opponents of the 
convention have argued we should only accede to the convention if it 
advances the national interest of the United States, especially in an 
area where the United States is a global leader.
  There have been questions raised regarding the binding nature of the 
convention. The response has been that the convention is nonbinding, 
and the committee formed by the treaty has no compulsory authority. 
This also addresses the concerns of opponents who have cited instances 
of overreach by such committees established by human rights treaties in 
the past.
  Most major veterans groups, as has been cited, and disability rights 
groups have all written in support and, as a matter of fact, turned out 
by the hundreds for the hearings and the markup of this legislation in 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As I indicated, it would be 
very important from the perspective of making the world a more 
accessible place for U.S. citizens, including disabled citizens and 
veterans who are disabled. And improving a global standard for all 
segments of the disabled community should be our goal. Although 
accession to the treaty will not instantly achieve that goal, it may 
provide another avenue through which we might achieve the goal.
  I want to mention specifically now some technical aspects of our 
committee consideration. Article 34 of the convention creates the 
committee we have talked about--the committee on the rights of persons 
and disabilities. It consists of 18 persons, elected by state parties 
to the convention, and they are required to submit periodic reports to 
the committee concerning measures taken to give effect to the 
obligations under the convention and the progress made in that regard. 
The convention provides the committee shall make such suggestions and 
general recommendations on the report as it may consider appropriate 
and shall forward those to the state party concerned. The committee 
recommendations are advisory only and are not binding on the sate 
parties, including the United States of America.
  Now, the United States has recognized the rights of individuals with 
disabilities through constitutional and statutory protections--the 
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which has been cited. As such, 
many of the general requirements of the convention for protection of 
disability rights already exist in Federal law. The provisions of the 
convention can be grouped generally into the following categories: 
Accessibility, education, equality, employment, and health.
  Now, the committee closely reviewed the ``best interest of the 
child'' standard as set forth in article 7 of the convention, including 
whether the ratification of the convention by the United States could 
negatively impact parental rights with respect to disabled children, 
including parents who opt for home schooling of disabled children. The 
Department of Justice testified unequivocally that parental rights 
would not be hindered in any way.
  In response to written questions for the record, Senior Counselor to 
the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Eve Hill, stated:

       In light of the Federalism and private conduct 
     reservations, among others, there would be no change to 
     Federal, State or local law regarding the ability of parents 
     in the United States to make decisions about how to raise or 
     educate their children as a result of ratification.

  Mention has been made by the chairman about article 25 of the 
convention. The state parties recognize that individuals with 
disabilities have the same right as others to enjoyment of the highest 
attainable standards held. They must be offered the same range, 
quality, and standard of care that is available to other persons in 
their countries. Health care professionals must provide care on the 
same basis they would provide if the individual

[[Page 15457]]

seeking care did not have a disability. Article 25 also prohibits 
discrimination based on disability related to the provisions of health 
and life insurance.
  The convention does not provide any additional or different rights on 
matters of abortion. It also provides that people with disabilities not 
be treated any differently than others. Existing U.S. rules on abortion 
would still apply to U.S. citizens.
  The administration has recommended the Senate include certain 
reservations, declarations, and understandings in any resolution of 
advice and consent. The administration has stated, with the following 
reservations, understandings, and declarations; that the United States 
would be able to implement its obligations under the convention using 
its vast existing network of laws affording protection to persons with 
disabilities. Therefore--and I stress this--no new legislation would be 
required to ratify and implement the convention.
  I shall not go through all the details of the reservations, but they 
do specifically mention federalism: The convention shall be implemented 
by the Federal Government of the United States of America to the extent 
it exercises the legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters 
covered therein and otherwise by the State and local governments to the 
extent that State and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such 
matters.
  I would say, secondly, there is nonregulation of certain private 
conduct. This is a reservation suggested by the administration, adopted 
by the committee. The Constitution and laws of the United States 
establish extensive protection against discrimination, reaching all 
forms of government activity as well as significant areas of 
nongovernment activity. Individual privacy and freedom from government 
interference in certain private conduct is also recognized as being 
among fundamental values of our free and democratic society.
  The United States understands that by its terms the convention can be 
read to require broad regulation of private conduct. To the extent it 
does, the United States of America does not accept any obligation--any 
obligation--under the convention to enact legislation or take other 
measures with respect to private conduct except as mandated by the 
Constitution and laws of the United States of America.
  I would mention, in addition to proposed reservations of the 
administration adopted by the committee, there were numerous proposed 
understandings all of which were adopted by the committee. They protect 
essentially the first amendment of the United States, economic, social, 
and cultural rights in our country, equal employment opportunity, 
uniformed employees of the United States, military departments, and 
definition of disability. In other words, U.S. law, State and local 
government law apply in all of these cases without exception and cannot 
be countermanded by anything with regard to this treaty. Likewise, 
there have been proposed declarations offered by the State Department, 
and these were adopted by the committee.
  I would simply say, Mr. President, without reiterating each of the 
reservations, they all attempt to meet any conceivable objection or 
question raised by citizens of the United States who have testified, 
who have written to the committee, or Members of this body who have 
visited with members of the committee as we were preparing for this 
obligation today. This is a treaty, in essence, that states our 
idealism. We would be a part of an organization in which we have a 
forum to do that. We are under no obligation to adopt any of the 
suggestions of the other committee members, although we will listen 
respectfully to them.
  As a matter of fact, the treaty is important because we have such a 
gold standard that others have simply raised the question: Why are you 
not a part of a picture that might make this available, thoughtfully, 
to the rest of the world? And there is no good answer to that if in 
fact we espouse these ideals with regard to all of humanity and hope 
they might be adopted by others. But, specifically, and one reason 
veterans organizations and other organizations trying to help the 
disabled in our country advocate this treaty is that we would like to 
see improvement in other countries.
  Sometimes our warfighters, as a matter of fact, are forced by all 
sorts of conditions to live in other countries. We hope they are 
receiving proper treatment, the best treatment. As a matter of fact, if 
they have any sort of life in those countries, we hope there is 
improvement for them. We hope, as they come back to America and then 
find it necessary to travel abroad again for any number of purposes, 
that the treatment for their disabilities will be there and, hopefully, 
of the same quality. We need to be advocates of this convention, 
advocates for our veterans and for other Americans who have 
disabilities.
  So for these reasons, Mr. President, I am grateful to the majority 
leader for bringing this legislation to the floor at this time. We are 
very hopeful that at least the bipartisan debate we had in our 
committee and the strong vote for ratification will find at least some 
resonance in this overall debate in the Senate.
  It has been a privilege on my part to work with our leader and to 
have had an excellent set of hearings and to have enjoyed the comments 
of our veterans. There are many in this body who have served this 
country in the military services. They have distinguished records. I 
had only a modest 3 years and 4 months of Active Duty after 
volunteering for the Navy, but that was sufficient for me to learn what 
was important for those with whom I was serving and those in veterans 
organizations, such as the American Legion, headquartered in 
Indianapolis, IN, about what is vital to the quality of life for those 
constituents.
  So I am hopeful we will have success in this effort tonight.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana, not just 
for his comments now but for his many years of leadership on these 
issues and for his wonderful partnership in all of this. I will have 
more to say about that as the days go on, but we are going to miss his 
vision and wisdom over the course of the years.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
that the time be equally divided under the quorum call. I would hope 
colleagues would come to the floor and use the time as they desire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. 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. LUGAR. I would like to recognize Senator Vitter on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                   Detention of Elton ``Mark'' McCabe

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to note grave concern on behalf of 
a constituent of mine and his family. Elton ``Mark'' McCabe, a 
businessman from Slidell, LA, has been held against his will in the 
custody of South Sudanese officials since October 14--for several weeks 
now, going on a month, through Thanksgiving.
  Mark McCabe was in Africa, South Sudan, with business partners 
pursuing business opportunities, doing everything by the book, legally, 
ethically, and apparently, for reasons we don't yet fully understand, 
business competitors or business enemies of his had some sway with 
South Sudanese officials in a particular portion of the government with 
the security force, and he was taken into custody. He was charged with 
vague, very serious crimes and has been held against his will for these 
many weeks. I won't go into all the details, but it has been a long 
torturous experience.
  I have been on the phone constantly, virtually every day, with State 
Department officials, with the South Sudanese Ambassador to the United 
States, with others, trying to demand basic due process and basic 
justice.
  Things have gotten a little better in the last week, and a few days 
ago there

[[Page 15458]]

was a hearing before a judge regarding these trumped-up charges. When 
the prosecution had basically no facts and no evidence to present, the 
judge virtually laughed in their face with regard to this lack of a 
case. Nonetheless, the prosecution asked for 3 more days to get its 
house in order, to get its notes in order, possibly just to try to save 
face by dropping these trumped-up charges against Mr. McCabe rather 
than having them thrown out against their will by the judge. We hope 
that is the case, we pray that is the case, but we don't know yet.
  The next hearing before this same judge is going to be this Thursday. 
So I come to the Senate floor to urge that judge and the South Sudanese 
Government to do the right thing, to do justice and immediately release 
Mark McCabe, who, again, has been held against his will, with no 
evidence, with no meaningful charges against him, since October 14.
  I want to repeat what I said directly to the South Sudanese 
Ambassador to the United States. For many years we have built a strong, 
positive, bilateral relationship, but that relationship depends on 
appropriate trust between the parties and appropriate action. And we 
are looking at this case very seriously. We are looking at this case as 
a test of their judicial system, as a test of their appropriate 
intentions. If this completely unjustified detention continues, I vow 
that I will personally make sure there are consequences and 
repercussions to that relationship because there should be. They have 
violated basic fundamental legal and human rights of U.S. citizens.
  I am hopeful based on what happened in South Sudan a few days ago, 
but, to quote President Ronald Reagan, trust but verify. And we are 
going to verify one way or the other come Thursday. The matter is very 
simple: Even though Mark McCabe has been held against his will for 
weeks and weeks, finally, at this late date, we fully expect this sorry 
state of affairs to end on Thursday. And if these trumped-up, frivolous 
charges continue, if he continues to be held against his will, I 
promise I will make those statements to the South Sudanese Ambassador 
ring true. I promise I will follow up and take action because this is 
absolutely outrageous.
  I know we all join to pray for justice, to pray for Mr. McCabe's 
safekeeping. He has a serious heart condition. Indications are that he 
actually suffered a mild heart attack while in the custody of South 
Sudanese officials. So we pray for him, and we very much expect and 
look forward to his quick return to his home in the United States.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I rise to support the ratification of 
the U.N. Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities or, as it is 
known, the CRPD.
  First, I wish to thank Chairman Kerry of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee for his diligence and for his leadership on this issue. He 
has carried it through the committee; he has brought it to the floor. 
In fact, I was reminded earlier today, we were both on the committee 
back in the 1980s when we first started working on the Americans with 
Disabilities Act under the tutelage, really, of Senator Lowell Weicker, 
who remains a great friend to this day and is still a great leader on 
the issues of people with disabilities. So we go back that far working 
together on these issues.
  I thank Senator Kerry for his great leadership in bringing us to this 
point and, hopefully, the point being that we are going to ratify this 
wonderful treaty.
  I thank Senator Lugar again for all of his efforts through so many 
years on so many different issues, and on this issue especially, going 
back to the beginning of the Americans with Disabilities Act. If I 
might divert from this just for one brief moment to thank Senator Lugar 
for his leadership in making the world safer by getting rid of nuclear 
weapons in the Soviet Union. What a singular effort that has been. 
Senator Lugar has done much to make the world a better place for us and 
for our kids and grandkids. So I salute him for his wonderful 
leadership in that area.
  Senator McCain, of course, was here and worked with us on the 
Americans with Disabilities Act back in 1989 and 1990. He was very much 
involved in it; Senator Durbin, Senator Barrasso, Senator Moran, 
Senator Udall, and Senator Coons, I guess all of whom worked very hard 
to secure the ratification of this important convention.
  As the chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 
Pensions and as the lead Senate author of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, I want the United States to become a party to this 
convention so we can apply the expertise we have developed under the 
ADA and help the rest of the world remove barriers to full 
participation and to honor the human rights of citizens with 
disabilities. One of my greatest joys in the Senate has been my work 
with so many Senators on the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
  The ADA stands for a simple proposition: that disability is a natural 
part of the human experience and that all people with disabilities have 
an inherent right to make choices to pursue meaningful careers and to 
participate fully in all aspects of society. So thanks to the ADA, our 
country is a more welcoming place not just for people with a variety of 
disabilities but for everyone.
  Twenty-two years ago, on July 26, 1990, President Bush gathered 
hundreds of Americans with disabilities on the White House lawn for the 
ADA signing ceremony, and here is what he said. It is wonderful.

       This historic act is the world's first comprehensive 
     declaration of equality for people with disabilities--the 
     first. Its passage has made the United States the 
     international leader on this human rights issue.

  Well, thanks to the ADA and other U.S. laws, America is showing the 
rest of the world how to honor the basic human rights of children and 
adults with disabilities, how to integrate them into society, how to 
remove barriers to their full participation in activities that most 
Americans just take for granted.
  Our support for disability rights inspired a global movement that led 
the United Nations to adopt the CRPD. In fact, I might just add 
parenthetically that after the Americans with Disabilities Act was 
adopted, we had people from many countries come here. I can think of, 
first, Russia. Then it was Greece, Ireland, Great Britain, as well as a 
number of people from other countries who came here to learn what we 
had done and then to pick it up and move forward in their own 
countries. Our legal framework influenced the substance of the 
convention and is informing its implementation in the 125 countries, I 
think, that have ratified it along with the European Union.
  My staff was involved in 2002 when the U.N. first broached this 
subject of coming up with a convention and, in turn, provided to them 
the substance of the Americans with Disabilities Act, its history, its 
provisions, and what had been done from its adoption in 1990 until 2002 
and the changes that it had brought about in our own country. So, 
really, I think the Americans with Disabilities Act informed and laid 
the basis for what the U.N. began to do in 2002 and completed in 2006.
  So, again, I am very grateful for the leadership of Senator Kerry, 
Senator McCain, as well as Senator Dole, who I know is not able to be 
with us right now, but I thank them for all of their support for the 
ratification of the CRPD. I also appreciate that former President 
George H.W. Bush, his White House Counsel Boyden Gray, Attorney General 
Dick Thornburg, former Congressman Steve Bartlett, and Tony Coelho have 
all been actively supporting this ratification.

[[Page 15459]]

  I am also grateful for the support from the U.S. business community, 
including, clearly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Information 
Technology Industry Council for ratification of this treaty. Because of 
their experience with the ADA, American businesses have developed 
expertise they can apply in the global marketplace in a way that gives 
them a competitive advantage. If we are a party to the convention, the 
U.S.-based companies with this expertise will be on much more solid 
footing when they are seeking to help other countries write and 
implement domestic legislation consistent with the convention and 
consistent with U.S. standards for accessibility and equal opportunity.
  Like the Americans with Disabilities Act, the CRPD enjoys widespread 
support in the disability, civil rights, business, veterans, and faith-
based communities. I could be off a little bit, but as of the writing 
of this statement we have letters of support from more than 250 
American disability organizations, 21 veterans service organizations--
and I caught some of the comments made by our distinguished chairman, 
Senator Kerry, in talking about veterans and our wounded warriors as 
they travel around the world and being able to access in other parts of 
the world what they can access here in America; a very good point--and 
26 faith organizations also in support of the CRPD. These entities all 
realize the critical importance of America's position as a global 
leader on disability rights. They want our country to have a seat at 
the table and to share that expertise as the States Parties to the 
Convention work to implement it around the world.
  I might add here, under the convention a committee will be 
established to assist and to help other countries in implementing and 
changing their laws and conforming. If we are a party to this, we get a 
seat at the table. If we are not a party to it, we will not have a seat 
at the table. Why shouldn't we have a seat at the table? We have been 
the world leaders. So by ratifying this convention, the United States 
will be reaffirming our commitment to our citizens with disabilities. 
Americans with disabilities should be able to live and travel, study 
and work abroad with the same freedoms and access they enjoy here in 
this country. Again, as other countries that have been signatories to 
this treaty grapple with how to change their systems and to make their 
systems more accessible, we can be at the table helping them to 
implement this treaty and to learn from our experience.
  The administration has submitted reservations, understandings, and 
declarations that make clear that U.S. ratification will not require 
any change in U.S. law and will have no fiscal impact. The Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee has modified these reservations, 
understandings, and declarations to address concerns that were raised 
in the committee markup.
  Although U.S. ratification of the CRPD will not require changes in 
U.S. law and will not have a fiscal impact, I think it is very clear 
that U.S. ratification will have a clear moral impact. It will send a 
signal to the rest of the world that it is not OK to leave a baby with 
Down Syndrome on the side of the road to die, it is not OK to warehouse 
adults with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities in institutions, 
chained to the bars of a cell, when their only ``crime'' is having a 
disability, it is not OK to refuse to educate children because they are 
blind, deaf, or use a wheelchair, it is not OK to prevent disabled 
people from voting, getting married, owning property, or having 
children, it is not OK to rebuild infrastructures in Iraq or 
Afghanistan or Haiti or other war-torn or disaster-stricken areas 
without improving the accessibility of the infrastructure at the same 
time.
  Former President Reagan frequently talked about America as a city on 
a hill, a shining example for the world of a nation that ensures 
opportunity and freedom for all its people. Thanks to our country's 
success in implementing the ADA, advancing that law's great goals of 
full inclusion and full participation, America, indeed, has become a 
shining city on a hill for people with disabilities around the globe. 
By ratifying the CRPD, we can affirm our leadership in this field. We 
can give renewed impetus to those striving to emulate us. We can give 
them that renewed impetus by our example and by sitting down with them 
and working with them only if we are a signatory to this treaty.
  Again, you think about American exceptionalism. We are a pretty 
exceptional country, when you think about it, in many ways. We are not 
just exceptional because we have the most tanks and guns and bombs and 
things such as that, but we are exceptional in what we have done in 
terms of civil rights and human rights and to include all in our 
family--our family being our citizenship. We took great strides. 
America has always been evolving as a country to expand civil rights 
and human rights, and one of the latest, of course, was to extend those 
rights to people with disabilities in our society, making sure people 
with disabilities had all the rights and opportunities that anyone 
enjoys in our society.
  It seems to me that this is the kind of exceptionalism we ought to be 
promoting around the globe. We ought to be proud. We should be proud of 
what we have done as a country in this regard. We should not be 
afraid--not be afraid--to join in a convention to extend to the rest of 
the world what we have done here, basically, and to be helpful in 
making sure that other countries can also attain that kind of a 
standard that does not exclude anyone because of a disability from 
their society.
  I know there were some who were not part of the bipartisan vote to 
support ratification in the committee. I understand that. But my hope 
is that in the intervening time, in the course of Senate debate, we 
will have addressed any remaining concerns, move forward with a strong 
bipartisan vote to provide our advice and consent, and pass the 
resolution supporting U.S. ratification of the CRPD with overwhelming 
bipartisan support.
  When we voted on the ADA in 1990, it was a vote where only 6 people 
in the Senate voted against it--91 to 6. It was a historic law. My hope 
is we can achieve the same kind of strong bipartisan statement of 
support for the human rights of 1 billion people with disabilities 
around the world.
  As to those of us who travel a lot around the world--maybe I see it 
more because of my involvement in this issue--I cannot begin to 
describe how often it is people come up and ask us how we can help, 
help them change so that people with disabilities can have more access, 
be more involved. Many times I have been to countries where someone 
comes up and may not know of my involvement in this issue, but through 
the course of conversation--maybe it is someone in business, maybe it 
is someone in government, in education--they mention this: They mention 
accessibility because they have a brother, a sister, a friend, someone 
who has a disability, and they talk about how easy it is for them in 
America to get around, to move around, to go to school, to do business, 
and they would hope that maybe their country could do the same. It 
happens a lot. Here we are, we have the opportunity to be a key player 
in this global effort.
  It was important for us as a country for the first 10 to 20 years to 
focus on our own internal problems in terms of advancing the cause of 
people with disabilities, when you think about all the changes that 
have come about in the last 22 years. And now we take a lot of it for 
granted in terms of accessibility, mobility, education, health care, 
job accessibility. It is just not unusual any longer to walk into a 
business and see someone with a physical disability or an intellectual 
disability working there. We kind of do not even think about it much 
anymore. We do not think about kids with disabilities mainstreamed in 
schools.
  I remember when our oldest daughter was in grade school and IDEA was 
just coming into force and effect, the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, and a child with a disability was integrated into the 
classroom. There was this big hue and cry from a lot of the parents 
about: Oh, this kid was going to be disruptive. And how are the other 
kids going to learn?

[[Page 15460]]

  Well, we got through that. Now we have a whole generation, what I 
call the ADA generation, kids who were mainstreamed in school, and kids 
without disabilities do not think anything about being their friends, 
going to a ball game with them, going to the theater with them, working 
alongside them. So we have this whole new generation where you do not 
think about it any longer. It is a normal aspect of life.
  That is not so in other countries. In other countries, it is still, 
quite frankly, a sign of disgrace when a family has a child with a 
disability. Well, it is time to get over that. By being a country 
signing on to this, we can help them in so many ways. It is not just 
kids or young people with physical disabilities; it is people with 
intellectual disabilities. For how long have we looked down on people 
with Down Syndrome, for example, and said: Well, they cannot do 
anything? We segregate them in society. We send them to special 
schools. We give them occupations that do not challenge them. Now we 
have broken that down. Now so many people with intellectual 
disabilities, we find, can do a lot of things, and they can be 
challenged. And, yes, they can do competitive employment. They do not 
need sheltered workshops. They can be in competitive employment, with 
just a little support and a little training.
  So many things have changed for the better in this country. It would 
be a shame--be a shame--if all this good we have done through all 
sectors of society--the business community, government, transportation, 
education; all these things we have done to make sure people with 
disabilities are not discriminated against and they have full 
opportunities, all the opportunities that anyone else has in our 
society--it would be a shame to say that somehow we are not going to 
support a convention, an international convention that basically takes 
what we have done and says: Here, world, this is what we should be 
doing globally.
  To have 125 countries already signed up to it, and here we are--those 
who took the leadership in this area, everyone from the White House to, 
as I say, the Chamber of Commerce, that was supportive of the ADA, the 
business community that worked so hard on this--it would be a shame if 
we did not ratify this and become players in this and have a seat at 
the table to help the rest of the world attain what we have attained in 
this country.
  Again, I thank Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, and so many others, 
Senator McCain and others--I am probably forgetting to mention 
someone--but so many people who have worked so hard to bring this issue 
to this point.
  I have to believe--yes, I know there are some Senators who have some 
problems, and I do not question anyone's motives or anything like that. 
I think some people do have, maybe, some concerns about this. 
Hopefully, through the amending process, we can allay those concerns. I 
hope we get resounding--resounding--support for the ratification of 
this treaty and show the world that we are proud of what we have done, 
and we want to join with the rest of the world in making sure they too 
can advance and progress and have the same kind of support and 
accessibility and opportunity for people with disabilities as we have 
had in America.
  Again, I thank my colleague and my classmate and my longtime friend 
Senator Kerry for his leadership on this issue, and I hope we have a 
resounding, overwhelming vote, just as we did for the Americans with 
Disabilities Act 22 years ago.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Iowa and I want 
to comment quickly before I yield the floor to the Senator from 
Minnesota. I also have a unanimous consent request.
  I heard the Senator pay appropriate tribute to Senator Lugar for his 
accomplishments in terms of making the world safer. I say to my friend, 
without any question whatsoever in reserve that the accomplishment of 
the ADA is one of those singular moments in the career of any U.S. 
Senator and it made the world better here at home, and a lot of other 
places if we get this done. The Senator from Iowa helped set that gold 
standard, so I thank him for that and for the pleasure--there are only 
three of us left from our class, so it is good to stand up with him 
today, and I appreciate it enormously.
  I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate only on the treaty 
be extended until 6:30 p.m., with the time equally divided as provided 
under the previous order; further, that at 6:30 p.m., the majority 
leader be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I rise to discuss the importance of the Convention on 
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I wish to thank Senator Kerry 
and Senator Lugar for their outstanding leadership on this important 
treaty, as well as Senator Harkin, my neighbor to the south, for all he 
has done for people with disabilities.
  For many years I have served on the advisory board of Pacer, which is 
one of the Nation's greatest organizations for parents of kids with 
disabilities, and saw firsthand what so many families go through every 
day, the incredible courage and the love they show for their children 
and the inspiration so many people with disabilities bring to our 
country.
  To paraphrase Minnesota's own ``happy warrior,'' Hubert Humphrey, the 
moral test of a government isn't just how it treats the young, the 
healthy, and the able bodied, it is also how it treats the sick, the 
elderly, and the disabled--those in need of a little extra support.
  That may be the moral test of a government, but I believe it is also 
the moral test of a people and the moral test of a country. Today, I 
call on all my colleagues to vote to ratify the Convention on the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities for two simple reasons. First of 
all, ratifying this treaty is about protecting the rights of U.S. 
citizens who are living with disabilities overseas.
  Right now, thousands of Americans with disabilities, including our 
men and women in uniform, live, work, study, and travel abroad. I 
believe these Americans deserve the same rights and protections they 
would enjoy if they were living in the United States. This treaty is 
about ensuring those rights and protections.
  Second, ratifying this treaty is about advancing a core moral value 
we all share as Americans, the idea that all people are created equal 
and that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable 
rights. Our country has long led the world as a beacon for equality and 
human dignity. This treaty would elevate our role in promoting human 
rights around the globe.
  These are American values, but they are especially near and dear to 
my heart as a Senator from Minnesota, where we have a long and proud 
tradition of working to ensure that people with disabilities have 
access to the same basic resources and opportunities as everyone else. 
After all, it was the Minnesota Ramp Project that introduced a new 
American model for building statewide standardized wheelchair ramps.
  We are the State that sent Paul Wellstone to the Senate, where he 
fought long and hard for mental health parity, something that finally 
passed in the Senate and was signed into law after he died--but it was 
signed into law. We are home to some of the most innovative centers for 
the disabled in the country, including Pacer, that I already mentioned, 
the Courage Center, and ARC.
  We even have one of the most accessible baseball stadiums in the 
country. We are looking forward to a better season for the Twins next 
year, and we are so proud of our new stadium and how accessible it is 
for people with disabilities. In many foreign countries, not even 
schools and hospitals can meet these standards for people with 
disabilities. When a person is not even able to get an education or 
access to health

[[Page 15461]]

care they need because of a disability, that is a very big problem.
  Even more troubling is the fact that some foreign countries lack laws 
for protecting the disabled against discrimination, meaning they have 
no recourse after being denied a job or an education or the use of 
public services. Remember, these inequities do not just affect foreign 
citizens, they affect Americans who are living in those countries.
  So this is what is at stake: protecting our own citizens when they 
travel to other countries and extending the values of equality and 
justice we so cherish in our own country. It is important to note that 
ratifying this treaty will not require any changes to U.S. law, nor 
will it impact American sovereignty, nor will it incur costs to 
taxpayers.
  It has been endorsed by every major disabled person's rights 
organization, every major veteran's service organization, the Chamber 
of Commerce, and several Republican and Democratic administrations. 
Protecting the rights of the most vulnerable among us is not a partisan 
issue. It is an issue of decency and an issue of dignity. I believe it 
is an issue we must all stand behind as Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to ratify this treaty and move us forward in 
advancing the rights of disabled people around the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I wanted to thank the Senator from 
Minnesota so much for taking time to come over. I know she did not 
intend to earlier, but she cares about the issue and took the time to 
come and share her thoughts with us. We are very appreciative. We 
obviously hope the Twins do whatever they want, second only to the Red 
Sox in the future.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, before us for advice and consent is the 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the CRPD. I 
support the treaty and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support it.
  In America, I do not believe anyone considers someone with a 
disability to have any less rights or protections than people without 
disabilities. I would suggest this reality is partly due to our values 
but also due to bipartisan efforts to codify in law that persons with 
disabilities are afforded equal access and protection from 
discrimination.
  Over 22 years ago members of both parties came together to pass the 
Americans with Disabilities Act. It is not only the law of the land but 
it is the template for the CRPD in countries around the world that are 
moving to update their laws. Both the ADA and the ADA amendments of 
2008 were passed with wide bipartisan margins. They are examples that 
from time to time we can engage in a bipartisan effort in this body.
  In many countries accessibility to public spaces is not available to 
persons with disabilities. They are still discriminated against or cast 
aside in societies across the globe. Horrifically, infanticide occurs 
in many countries where children are born with disabilities. Protecting 
the rights of persons with disabilities, all persons, is not a 
political issue, it is a human issue.
  Regardless of where in the world a disabled person strives to live a 
normal, independent life, where basic rights and accessibilities are 
available, disability rights and protections have always been a 
bipartisan issue. Ratifying this treaty should be no different.
  Senator Durbin and I and Senator Kerry began months ago--with Senator 
Harkin, Senator Lugar, many others. We had been discussing months ago 
how we could work together in a bipartisan manner and build support for 
ratification of the treaty.
  As I mentioned, we have worked closely with Senators Moran, Barrasso, 
Coons, Tom Udall, Harkin, and others. I wish to thank them for their 
support and efforts to get us to this point. Senator Kerry deserves 
special recognition for scheduling a Foreign Relations Committee 
hearing and a markup that favorably reported the measure out of the 
committee. I also wish to thank the majority leader for scheduling this 
treaty for consideration today.
  I think my colleagues should appreciate that this treaty is supported 
by over 300 disability organizations, at least 21 U.S. military 
veterans service organizations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and many 
other organizations. It is not an accident that literally every 
veterans organization in this country supports this treaty because it 
is our veterans, many of whom are coming home as we speak, who will 
live and travel abroad and will benefit from this treaty.
  As I have been traveling around the world where conflict is ever 
present, I have seen that so many people will benefit from the 
principles embodied in the treaty. So I would argue this effort is 
probably more important today in the world than it has been in the 
past. Another strong supporter of this treaty is one of my closest 
friends and heroes, Bob Dole. As you know, Bob has dedicated nearly his 
entire life to this country, through his military service and, 
following that, many years in public service.
  He has dedicated the past several months to encourage support in the 
Senate for this treaty. Earlier, I read a statement from Bob. I would 
like to mention some parts of the statement. I will point out rather 
poignantly he says:

       It was an exceptional group I joined during World War II, 
     which no one joins by personal choice. It is a group that 
     neither respects or discriminates by age, sex, wealth, 
     education, skin color, religious beliefs, political party, 
     power, prestige. That group, Americans with disabilities, has 
     grown in size ever since. So, therefore, has the importance 
     of maintaining access for people with disabilities to 
     mainstream American life, whether it is access to a job, an 
     education, or registering to vote.

  I will not go through Bob Dole's entire statement. I would point out 
there are still thousands and thousands and thousands of his comrades 
who came home disabled in some respect--Bob, of course, in the most 
painful way. We all recall, with some nostalgia and appreciation, that 
he and our other wonderful hero Senator Inouye spent time in the same 
hospital following World War II going through very difficult periods of 
rehabilitation, a friendship that was forged there that has lasted ever 
since.
  I can assure you there is nothing Bob Dole would want more than to be 
here on the floor of this Senate delivering his own speech before the 
Senate and urging colleagues to consider this treaty based on facts and 
on our values that ensure, protect, and advance the rights of persons 
with disabilities, whether on U.S. soil or around the globe where we 
can make a difference.
  I received a letter today from--it is very difficult for me to 
pronounce his name, but I will try--from one individual, Chen 
Guangcheng. He is an individual who is a blind Chinese activist who 
recently came to the United States of America thanks to the efforts of 
many of the leaders in our administration, including the Secretary of 
State.
  I wish to quote from his letter. This is an individual who is blind, 
who fought for human rights in his country, in China, and now, thank 
God, is in the United States of America. His letter 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, worldwide 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 twenty years ago, the idea of true 
     equality for people with disabilities became a reality. Many 
     nations have followed in America's footsteps and now are 
     coming together under shared principles of equality, respect, 
     and dignity for

[[Page 15462]]

     people with disabilities as entailed in the CRPD. The U.S.--
     which was instrumental in negotiating the CRPD--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.
       As I continue my studies in the United States, it is a 
     great pleasure to now learn firsthand how the U.S. developed 
     such a comprehensive and strong system of protection for its 
     citizens with disabilities. I am so hopeful that you will 
     support ratification and allow others to benefit from these 
     triumphs. Thank you for your leadership.

  That is a very moving letter from a man who risked his very life, a 
man who is blind but still risked his life for the freedom of others, 
including rights in his country for individuals with disabilities.
  There is a letter we have from former Attorney General Dick 
Thornburgh and White House Counsel Boyden Gray. They wrote to the 
Foreign Relations Committee to address issues being raised by 
opponents, particularly homeschool advocates who believe parental 
rights to homeschool or make decisions for their children will be 
impaired. I take it that my colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, 
addressed this aspect of the concerns the homeschoolers have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. If I might just say to my colleague, the resolution 
actually does address it, but I have not, so I think it would be 
important, if the Senator wishes to address that.
  Mr. McCAIN. Here is what they wrote, the former Attorney General--I 
have been blessed to live and know many Attorneys General, but I think 
all of us on both sides of the aisle would agree that Dick Thornburgh 
ranks up there at the top. This is what they write concerning the issue 
of homeschooling:

       Nothing in this treaty prevents parents from homeschooling 
     or making decisions for their children. This treaty embraces 
     IDEA, the ADA, and all of the disability nondiscrimination 
     legislation that has made the United States a leader on 
     disability rights. The specific provisions on women and 
     children state that women and children with disabilities 
     cannot be the victims of illegal discrimination--as is the 
     case under U.S. law. Furthermore, the CRPD recognizes and 
     protects the important role of the family and specifically 
     protects children from being separated from their parents on 
     the basis of a disability. We take a back seat to no one in 
     our defense of the rights of parents to raise their children 
     or in our support for our federalist system of government 
     with sovereignty at both the Federal and State levels of 
     government.

  Some opponents are also suggesting that somehow the U.S. law or 
existing parental rights would be impacted by supporting the treaty. 
Attorney General Thornburgh and White House Counsel Gray address this 
as well:

       We understand that some are claiming that changes in U.S. 
     law would be necessary to implement the obligations the U.S. 
     will undertake as a result of ratifying the treaty, or that 
     the RUDs that the Senate will approve will not have the force 
     of law. Such claims are not correct and, quite simply, 
     extraordinary. When the U.S. Senate attaches conditions to 
     its consent to a treaty, they are binding on the President, 
     and the President cannot proceed to ratify a treaty without 
     giving them effect. The Senate has a long tradition of 
     careful consideration and frequent adoption of limited RUDs, 
     as is the case here. Any claims that such limited conditions 
     do not have the force of law, or are inconsistent with the 
     object and purpose of a treaty on disabilities that U.S. laws 
     inspired in the first place, is contrary to the long-held 
     position articulated by the Senate--regardless of which party 
     is in control (and in spite of whatever theories that may 
     momentarily exist in academic circles).
       Administrations of both parties have also uniformly held 
     this view. In 1995 the U.S. stated that ``reservations are an 
     essential part of a State's consent to be bound. They cannot 
     simply be erased. This reflects the fundamental principle of 
     the law of treaties: obligation is based on consent. A State 
     which does not consent to a treaty is not bound by that 
     treaty. A State which expressly withholds its consent from a 
     provision cannot be presumed, on the basis of some legal 
     fiction, to be bound by it.''
       Furthermore, the CRPD protects the critical role of the 
     family by specifically recognizing the role of parents in 
     raising children with disabilities, and prohibits the 
     dissolution or separation of families because one or both of 
     the parents are persons with disabilities. Article 23, 
     entitled ``Respect for home and family,'' provides that 
     ``children with disabilities have equal rights with respect 
     to family life,'' that nations ratifying the treaty have an 
     obligation to ``undertake to provide early and comprehensive 
     information, services, and support to children with 
     disabilities and their families, and that ``(i)in no case 
     shall a child be separated from parents on the basis of a 
     disability of either the child or one or both of the 
     parents.'' Finally, the CRPD will provide much-needed 
     protection in other countries where there is no provision for 
     birth certificates or birth registration for children with 
     disabilities. In particular, it will help protect against the 
     horrible practice of infanticide of children born with 
     disabilities--a practice that can be facilitated through the 
     denial of birth certificates or registration to disabled 
     babies.

  Every action we have ever taken on disability policy has been 
bipartisan. Being able to live independently is a basic human dignity 
we support, and it is a value we can help advance internationally by 
supporting this treaty.
  I would like to say in closing that I thank both of my colleagues, 
Senator Lugar and Senator Kerry.
  I think we might think just for a moment, in conclusion, about the 
fact that there are various conflicts going on around the world. In 
Syria, we have seen 40,000 killed, and I don't know how many--100,000, 
200,000 who have been wounded, many of them innocent women and 
children, because of the ferocity and barbaric conduct of this 
conflict. I don't know how many people today in China are subject to 
infanticide because there is not a birth certificate available. And we 
know that practice, not only in China but in other parts of the world--
a lot of it in Asia--goes on. We live in a very troubled and turbulent 
world. Not only will we have the normal, usual situation--and I mean 
normal--there are people who are born with disabilities from time to 
time. I have had the honor of knowing children, as all of us have, and 
there are no more loving and caring people in the world than our 
children and our citizens who have disabilities. There are going to be 
a lot more because of the conflicts that are going on in various places 
in the world. They might deserve our special attention because they are 
living in countries that will have a lot less of the rule of law, a lot 
less ability to care for them, particularly in the short term. Whether 
it be Libya, whether it be Syria, whether it be Iraq, or whether it be 
Afghanistan, all of these countries, we are going to have citizens who 
have been the victims of the violence of war. I believe the best thing 
we can do for them in the short term is take whatever action we can to 
see that they are not discriminated against, that they receive the same 
protections we guarantee our Americans with disabilities, and that they 
are afforded an opportunity to live full and beautiful lives.
  Finally, I would like to say that my two friends and I have been 
around this place for quite a while--in the view of many, perhaps too 
long--but the fact is that one of the highlights of our shared 
experiences was on the lawn of the White House when a guy, Holmes 
Tuttle--remember one of the leaders of the disabilities movement, Mr. 
Tuttle--and others from the disabilities community were there, and the 
President of the United States at the time, President Herbert Walker 
Bush, and our beloved Bob Dole were there. It was a great moment for 
all of us. It was a great moment for America. It was all of us doing 
something, contributing in a small way to make better the lives of 
people who otherwise may have had great challenges in having the kinds 
of lives we want every American citizen to lead.
  I believe that this treaty, this action is an adequate and important 
followup because I don't think there is anybody who denies--yes, there 
are problems with any legislation of the sweeping magnitude and scope 
of the ADA, but I don't know of anybody who doesn't believe it was a 
magnificent success and an enormous contribution to making the lives of 
our citizens with disabilities better than they otherwise would have 
been. So wouldn't we want that same thing to happen to everyone in the 
world? Wouldn't we want these children who are going through such 
difficult times in their lives and wouldn't we want those who have been 
wounded and maimed to have an opportunity for a better life? Wouldn't 
we want to, as Americans, be proud that

[[Page 15463]]

we blazed the trail with the ADA in a really remarkable shift and 
change and an act of almost miraculous benefit to so many of our 
citizens, wouldn't we want that also to apply to the other citizens of 
the world? I think most of us would, and I think most of the American 
people who are paying attention to this believe that. That is why so 
many of our veterans organizations are in support. That is why so many 
in the disabilities community are in support. That is why there are so 
many charitable organizations that are in support.
  So I again thank both of my colleagues and tell them that I certainly 
hope we can convince all of our colleagues that one of the nicest 
things we could do as a Christmas present for people around the world 
is to ratify this treaty.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Arizona. 
I thank him for his comments just now, but most importantly I really 
appreciate his extraordinary leadership on this issue and a lot of 
human rights issues, issues of conscience. He speaks with a very 
important voice, and I think he knows I am always happier when he is 
working with me than against me on any issue on the floor. I know he 
used to pride himself in his fight occasionally with Senator Kennedy, 
but he also prided himself enormously when they were able to get 
together and work together.
  I have certainly enjoyed the many things Senator McCain and I have 
done together--most notably, I think, joining hands across a certain 
belief divide to help end the war in Vietnam, the real war that kept 
raging in the minds of a lot of people, and that was a 10-year journey 
we made together. I am certainly proud of that and grateful to him.
  But I want to come back to this treaty for a moment and Senator 
McCain's efforts on it. I would say to my colleagues who have raised in 
the minority report a couple of concerns--and none of us are dismissive 
of those concerns--every Senator has the right to express their 
beliefs, but I can't think of a Senator more compelled. He has been the 
ranking member and chair of the Armed Services Committee and for years 
has been one of the leading voices on defense issues and now the 
defense of our Nation. Everybody knows his record in terms of personal 
service. I think there is no Senator who comes to the floor arguing 
more consistently the prerogatives of the United States of America with 
respect to defending our Nation and upholding the Constitution.
  I would ask my colleagues who are finding some reason to doubt this 
treaty or to have some sense that it presents a threat to our country 
to take appropriate note of Senator McCain's fervent commitment to this 
and to the comments he made about former Attorney General Dick 
Thornburgh. I knew the Attorney General when he was Attorney General. I 
have enormous respect for him and for his career, and I think Senator 
McCain was 100 percent correct when he quoted him in the record as 
saying that nothing in this treaty will require any initiative by the 
United States to change a law or to reduce any capacity of our courts 
to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I think he did an 
important service in his comments with respect to that. I thank him for 
his contribution. Our fight is not over. We have some work to do in the 
next days, and I look forward to working with him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I join the chairman in thanking John McCain 
for his testimony, his courage, his eloquence, and his mention of those 
on our side of the aisle who have historically fought for the disabled. 
That is a very important fact today, and his presence, his strength and 
determination are very inspiring. We appreciate so much his support.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask 
that time be logged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are in the process of considering the 
ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities. The United States has led the world in creating the legal 
framework, building an infrastructure and designing facilities that 
ensure inclusion and opportunities for those living with disabilities.
  This year the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, under the 
leadership of Chairman John Kerry and ranking minority member Senator 
Richard Lugar, celebrated the 22nd anniversary of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act by favorably reporting the Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities on a strong bipartisan basis. I want to 
personally thank Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar for moving the treaty 
through the committee process. It was a hectic time--campaigns were 
going on--but they made a point of making certain we brought this issue 
forward.
  A personal thanks to my friend Senator John McCain, who is on the 
Senate floor at this moment, for making this a bipartisan effort. I 
also want to thank Senators Barrasso, Harkin, Tom Udall, Moran, and 
Coons for their bipartisan support and dedication to the passage and 
ratification of this important treaty.
  Now is the time for the full Senate to affirm our Nation's leadership 
on disability issues by ratifying this important treaty. We should do 
so with the strong bipartisan support that has always characterized the 
efforts we have had on disabilities.
  The support for this treaty is extremely broad and deep and 
bipartisan. It is supported by 165 disability organizations, including 
the U.S. International Council on Disabilities, the American 
Association of People with Disabilities, the Disability Rights 
Education and Defense Fund, and the National Disability Rights Network.
  In addition, it is supported by 21 different veterans groups, 
including the Wounded Warrior Project, the American Legion, Disabled 
American Veterans, and Veterans of Foreign Wars.
  President George H.W. Bush, who signed the Americans with 
Disabilities Act into law, has called for ratification of this treaty. 
But there has been no more passionate advocate--and I am so honored 
that he would consider devoting his energies and good name to our 
effort for ratification of the treaty--than Senator Bob Dole, a 
lifelong advocate for disability rights. We need to pass this treaty in 
a tribute to Bob Dole for his life of service to the State of Kansas 
and to the Nation, as well as his heroic efforts on behalf of the 
disabled in the Senate.
  These organizations and people of different backgrounds have come 
together to support ratification of the treaty because they know it is 
critical for those living with disabilities in the United States and 
around the world. Thanks to the ADA and similar laws, the United States 
has been so successful providing opportunities, accessibility, and 
protection of the rights of those living with disabilities that our 
Nation is already in full compliance with all terms of the treaty. 
Before transmitting this treaty, the Obama administration conducted an 
exhaustive comparison of the treaty's requirements to current U.S. law. 
Here is what they found: The United States does not need to pass any 
new laws or regulations in order to fully meet the terms of the treaty. 
The fact that we have already met or exceeded the treaty's requirements 
is a testament to our Nation's commitment to equality and opportunity 
for the disabled.
  But there are still important reasons to ratify this treaty. There 
are more than 5\1/2\ million veterans living with disabilities in the 
United States. They travel all over the world, often with their 
families. Ratifying this treaty will help move toward the day when 
wherever they travel they will be treated with accessibility, with the

[[Page 15464]]

kind of respect that every person would expect to have in traveling 
around the world.
  Ratifying this treaty will also give the United States a seat at an 
international table that we currently can't occupy. The United States 
can sit at the table on disability rights worldwide and provide 
guidance and expertise based on our experience and leadership. It just 
stands out like a sore thumb our country hasn't ratified this treaty 
when over 120 other nations have.
  This treaty would also level the playing field for American 
businesses. American businesses have invested time and resources to 
comply with the ADA. Businesses in some countries are not required to 
comply with similar standards. Compliance with the treaty levels the 
playing field by requiring foreign businesses to meet accessibility 
standards similar to those of the United States. It will open new 
markets for new technologies when it comes to disability.
  Mr. President, I know you have been a visitor at Walter Reed and 
Bethesda Naval Center, and you have seen our returning veterans, many 
who come home after losing a limb. They go through a period of the best 
rehabilitation, and then they are brought into a laboratory with the 
latest technology.
  A new Congresswoman from Illinois, named Tammy Duckworth--I am so 
proud of her election victory on November 6--lost both legs in Iraq 
when she was piloting a helicopter that was shot down. She was a member 
of the Illinois National Guard, and there was a question whether she 
would even survive the terrible incident where a rocket-propelled 
grenade was fired into the fuselage of her helicopter. She survived and 
has since used Walter Reed Hospital and Bethesda to make certain that 
she has the very best new prosthetic legs. They were good enough to 
carry her through a campaign successfully, and now she will be sworn in 
to the U.S. House of Representatives in just a few weeks.
  That kind of technology is being developed for our veterans, as it 
should be. Ultimately, it will be available to everyone across the 
United States and around the world. As companies make this new 
technology enabling amputees a full life, this technology becomes a 
part of the export of the United States. So there are opportunities 
here for the United States, as other countries comply with the treaty 
and develop new prosthetics and other things for their disabled, to 
have some business opportunities with new and good ideas. American 
businesses will be able to export their expertise and their products in 
new markets serving the hundreds of millions of people living with 
disabilities around the world.
  Let me tell you why it is important for us, even though our standards 
are good and high in helping the disabled, to worry about those with 
disabilities in other countries. There are estimates that 10 percent of 
the world's population lives with disabilities. Not only do these 
people courageously live each day, they live with many challenges and 
hurdles that could be removed with the right laws and policies that are 
contained in this convention.
  It is hard to believe, but 90 percent of children with disabilities 
in developing countries never attend school. Less than 25 percent of 
the countries in the United Nations have passed laws to even prohibit 
discrimination on the basis of disability. Studies indicate that women 
and girls in developing countries are more likely than men to have a 
disability.
  Unemployment is dramatically higher for those living in other 
countries with disabilities. This treaty will help provide the 
framework so countries around the world can help their own citizens 
with disabilities live productive, healthy lives. Just like we did by 
enacting the ADA 22 years ago, ratifying this treaty will send the 
world a message that people with disabilities deserve a level playing 
field.
  While this treaty will ensure inclusion and access for those living 
with disabilities, it is also important to note what the treaty will 
not do. The treaty will not require the United States to appropriate 
any new funding or resources to comply with its terms--not a single 
dollar. The treaty will not change any U.S. law or compromise U.S. 
sovereignty. The treaty will not lead to any new lawsuits because its 
terms do not create any new rights, and it cannot be enforced in any 
U.S. court. For families who choose to educate their children at home, 
the treaty will not change any of the current rights and obligations 
under American law. I was pleased that in the Foreign Relations 
Committee they adopted an amendment I worked on with Senator DeMint, a 
bipartisan amendment, to further clarify this issue.
  I also want to address the issue of abortion, which was raised 
yesterday by one of our former colleagues. Leading pro-life groups, 
such as the National Right to Life Committee, confirm the treaty does 
not promote, expand access or create any right to an abortion.
  When we tried to move this treaty earlier this year, some objected on 
the basis the Senate shouldn't ratify a treaty during a lameduck 
session. Well, we did a little study. I want to note for the record 
that since 1970, in the last 42 years the Senate has ratified at least 
19 treaties during lameduck sessions. There is no procedural or 
substantive justification for not ratifying this treaty which has broad 
bipartisan support and could mean so much to those living with 
disabilities.
  Thanks to decades of bipartisan cooperation, our country embodies the 
worldwide gold standard for those living with disabilities.
  In closing, I again salute Senator Bob Dole. He has been on the phone 
and working it, and I hope in tribute to his Senate career we will 
ratify this treaty.
  I also want to salute a former colleague of mine from the U.S. House 
of Representatives, Tony Coelho. Tony was the whip of the Democratic 
caucus when I was first elected, and he has been an amazing advocate 
for the disabled throughout his public career in the House and ever 
since. He came to me and asked to help in this effort, and I was happy 
to say yes to Tony, as I did so many times when I served with him in 
the House.
  I want to add one other person--Marca Bristo. Marca is the leading 
disability advocate in the city of Chicago. This wonderful young woman 
was tireless in her wheelchair, wheeling from office to office, begging 
Members and their staffs to consider voting for this treaty. If and 
when we pass it--and I hope that is soon--I am going to remember Marca 
and Tony, and certainly Senator Dole, for all the work they put into 
this.
  When the Senate ratifies this treaty, we can be proud our coworkers, 
friends, family members, and courageous veterans will soon enjoy the 
same access and opportunity when they travel abroad that they have come 
to expect right here in the United States.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to 
vote for the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons 
with Disabilities.
  I have the honor of serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
and was present during the hearings we had with regard to the 
ratification of the treaty. I listened to the witnesses who testified 
and listened to all the arguments that always have been made about 
treaties. I must tell you, it was overwhelmingly supportive of the 
ratification of the treaty.
  I want to acknowledge the work of Senator Lugar, who is on the floor. 
He has been a real champion on basic human rights issues and advancing 
it through treaties on which the United States has taken leadership. I 
applaud his unstinting commitment to advancing the rights of people 
with disabilities.
  I also want to acknowledge our chairman Senator Kerry, and the work 
he

[[Page 15465]]

has done in regard to this treaty; Senator Harkin, and many others, 
have been involved in the United States' participation in this treaty. 
To put it directly, we were responsible for this treaty moving forward 
because the United States has been in the leadership of protecting 
people with disabilities. The way we treat people with disabilities is 
a civil rights/human rights issue.
  We know the history of America was not always what it is today, and 
we know the struggles people with disabilities have had in getting 
access to services that we sometimes take for granted.
  Many years ago I visited our State institution for children with 
developmental disabilities. I saw in one large room literally 100 
children receiving no care at all, most of them not clothed. I knew we 
could do better in this country, and today our access to health 
services for people with disabilities is remarkably better.
  I remember when if you had a physical disability and were confined to 
a wheelchair, it was basically impossible to get use of public 
transportation. We have changed those policies in our country, 
recognizing that every American has the right to basic services. I 
remember when it was difficult for people to get public education in 
traditional schools if they had disabilities. We have changed those 
laws in America. We have changed our public accommodation laws. We have 
changed our employment laws. We have led the world in saying that it is 
a basic right, and people with disabilities have the same protections 
as every one of us.
  I am proud of the progress we have made here in the United States. I 
was part of the Congress in 1990 that passed the Americans With 
Disabilities Act. I am very proud to be part of the Congress that 
passed that law. I remember two of our colleagues who have been in the 
forefront of this work: Senator Dole, whose name has been mentioned, 
has been one of the great leaders in this body in protecting the rights 
of people with disabilities, and Congressman Tony Coelho, with whom I 
served in the other body, the House, took on a leadership position to 
bring to the public attention for us to do what was right for people 
with disabilities.
  The United States has provided international leadership. The year 
after we passed the Americans With Disabilities Act, my colleague in 
the House, Congressman Steny Hoyer, took that effort in the United 
States internationally. In 1991, in the Organization for Security and 
Cooperation in Europe, we passed the Declaration on the Rights of 
Persons With Disabilities because of the U.S. leadership. It is now 
known as the Moscow Document. We have provided international 
aspirations to make sure that we treat people with disabilities as we 
would treat anyone else.
  We have in America the strongest protections of any country. We have 
improved our laws. We have led the world in providing the right legal 
framework, the right policies, and the right programs so people with 
disabilities can gain access to all services.
  The ratification of this treaty is particularly important to the 
United States. I say that because it further demonstrates our 
leadership on this issue. We have added language in this treaty; we 
don't have to change any laws if we ratified this treaty. We are in 
full compliance. There is no need for America to take any further 
steps. All this treaty ratification does is reaffirm America's 
leadership on this issue and provides protection for our citizens 
internationally. We made that very clear with amendments we added to 
this treaty during the committee markup. We don't have to change any 
laws. Yet it helps U.S. citizens abroad. The rights of the disabled 
should not end at our border. They should have the same protections 
when they travel to another country or when they work in another 
country or when they temporarily live in another country. We want to 
make sure American citizens are treated fairly.
  A witness testified at our hearing on the ratification of this treaty 
about how she was in a wheelchair in another country and she was not 
permitted to use her wheelchair to get access to an airplane. That is 
wrong. This treaty will protect an American who happens to be in 
another country and who happens to have a disability to make sure that 
person can get reasonable access to transportation, reasonable access 
to public accommodations, and that the person is not discriminated 
against because of her or his disability. This helps advance globally 
the basic human rights of people with disabilities. Other countries 
will learn from the United States. Until we ratify, we can't 
participate in the international discussions taking place to protect 
people with disabilities. Yet we have the most advanced laws. By our 
ratification of this treaty, we are in a position to help other 
countries advance the rights of people with disabilities, and that is 
exactly what we should be doing in America.
  Our Nation was founded on the principle that we are all created equal 
and each of us has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness regardless of our abilities. Ratifying this treaty is a 
strong act of diplomacy and a symbol of America's continued commitment 
to equal justice for all. The history of our Nation has been the 
continued expansion of rights, opportunities, and responsibilities to 
more and more Americans. It is in our interests and in the interests of 
all humankind to see that the expansion happens in other countries as 
well.
  I urge my Senate colleagues to vote for the ratification of this 
treaty. It is the right vote to take for the United States. Standing up 
for basic human rights is right. It is right to protect our citizens 
when they travel internationally. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
ratification.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        House and Senate Action

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I just wished to address two things. 
The first is that we are having a continuing discussion about the 
budget of our country and about the taxes of our country and indeed 
about the unfair and often upside down nature of our current Tax Code 
that allows people making hundreds of millions of dollars a year to pay 
a lower tax rate than a family who earns $100,000 a year.
  In the context of that discussion, there is one thing that I think we 
can do right now that would be important and helpful to the vast 
majority of Americans, indeed to 98 percent of American families and 97 
percent of American small businesses; that is, to assure them that 
their taxes are not going to go up on January 1.
  Assuming we cannot get to a budget agreement before January, then 
automatically all the Bush tax cuts will end. The Senate has actually 
passed a law that will allow those tax cuts to be curtailed, to be 
protected for families who earn $250,000 a year and less. That bill has 
passed the Senate. It is now over at the House awaiting action by the 
House.
  The Republican-controlled House is in a position, anytime the Speaker 
chooses to call up that bill, to pass a guarantee of protection from 
tax increases that will protect 98 percent of American families and 97 
percent of American small businesses. I think they should do that. It 
is simply awaiting their action. There is nothing more we can do in the 
Senate. We have already passed that bill. It is one step away--Speaker 
Boehner allowing it to be called up and having it voted on--from 
becoming law and protecting 98 percent of families and 97 percent of 
small businesses from a tax increase on January 1.
  There is a real likelihood we will have to go beyond January 1 
because so many of our colleagues have sworn

[[Page 15466]]

that oath to Grover Norquist that they will not let taxes go up. He 
maintains the Bush tax cuts should last into eternity and anything 
above that would be a tax increase and violate the pledge.
  So we may have to wait until January 1, until the actual expiration 
of the Bush tax cuts vitiates that baseline and allows Republicans to 
enter into the very same deal they could have before, only now it is a 
tax decrease from the current rate that would presumably not get them 
in trouble with Mr. Norquist versus a tax increase from his--I think at 
this point--illogical and irrational projection of the Bush tax cuts 
into the indefinite future. So I call on our friends in the House of 
Representatives to pass that bill and give the vast majority of 
Americans relief from whatever uncertainty there might be about going 
beyond the January 1 deadline.
  The second issue I wished to address is to respond briefly to my 
friend from Arizona Senator Kyl, who spoke about the filibuster and the 
rules changes that are being discussed in this Chamber. He spoke this 
morning. I had the chance to watch a good part of his remarks on the 
television.
  I wanted to respond in a couple ways. First of all, I have the 
highest regard for Senator Kyl. We worked closely together trying to 
get a cyber security compromise. We worked together years ago on the 
immigration compromise. I have seen him in action on the Senate floor. 
He is very able. When he has reached an agreement with his colleagues, 
he is unshakeable and his word is good. I think very highly of him, 
although we do not agree politically on a great number of issues.
  But I did, in an atmosphere of great respect for him, wish to respond 
in a couple ways. The first is that I believe, at least, that there is 
a difference between what we are considering with this rules change and 
the so-called nuclear option that was threatened were respect to 
judges.
  The reason I think that is the case is that I have read the old 
opinions from previous Presiding Officers in the Senate and Vice 
Presidents in the past who have said that the way the Senate rules work 
is that although we are a continuing body, the way in which the rules 
continue from Senate to Senate is that we are impliedly readopting the 
rules as soon as we take any business under the rules each new session.
  The House behaves differently. The House has new rules each session. 
It is an entirely new reelected body each session. So they have to open 
by creating a new set of rules and adopting them. They do that at the 
beginning of every session. We virtually never do that. The rules 
continue. How is it that the rules continue? The ruling is that that 
continue because they are deemed to continue as soon as the Senate 
takes action under those rules, whatever it is. As soon as they take 
action under those rules at the beginning of a session, those rules are 
then deemed to be back in place, and we do not need to readopt them.
  But that does mean, at the beginning of each session, there is an 
opportunity, under the Constitution, to change the rules by a simple 
parliamentary majority of 51. I do not think that is breaking the rules 
to change the rules. That is part of the rule. That is how the rules 
actually work in the Senate, at least that is my belief and my opinion.
  Given that, I think arguing that this is somehow breaking the rules 
or the same as the nuclear option is not quite accurate. This and the 
nuclear option share the similarity of allowing the Senate to proceed 
with a simple majority. They do share that similarity. But this is 
different because we can only do that one early, first moment, as each 
new Senate comes into session. Some could say that is actually there as 
a safety valve for situations just like this where one party is 
consistently, regularly determinedly abusing a rule, but because the 
other party cannot get to 67 votes, they cannot change or correct the 
rule to restore the Senate to its proper behavior.
  I would note that I think there is virtually nobody in this Chamber 
who thinks the Senate is operating the way the Senate should. We have 
had literally hundreds of filibusters, and they are not the old-
fashioned filibuster people remember from ``Mr. Smith Goes to 
Washington,'' when Senator Jefferson Smith stood at a desk, probably 
about there in their mockup of the Senate floor, and talked himself to 
exhaustion, reading from the Bible, reading from the Constitution. He 
may have even read from the dictionary. I remember there was an old 
reporter up in the press gallery speaking about this. He talked about 
it being one of the great examples of American democracy, one lone 
Senator able to speak until he is exhausted on a point that matters to 
him.
  People may have been frustrated by that kind of filibuster, but there 
was at least a kind of nobility to it. The filibuster of today is very 
different. It is a threat from the minority party to bombard something 
with amendments so it cannot be managed on the floor. It is a threat to 
filibuster, to which the majority leader has to respond by filing 
cloture, and when the majority leader is forced to file cloture, the 
minority gets the benefit. They get 30 hours of debate.
  Of course, as we have seen in the Senate, that 30 hours of debate is 
never used. It just consumes 30 hours of floor time, most of it spent, 
as the distinguished Presiding Officer and I and others who preside in 
the Senate notice, in quorum calls, in endless deadly quorum calls with 
the poor old clerk having to call off the names slowly and quietly in 
the Chamber and nothing going on.
  People who are looking at this on C-SPAN and who dial into the Senate 
very often see that nothing is going on. That nothing going on is 
usually the hallmark of the modern filibuster. It is a colossal waste 
of time. It is intended to be a colossal waste of time. Because if we 
do that hundreds of times, as our minority has, multiply those hundreds 
of filibusters by 30 hours each, and they have ruined thousands of 
hours of Senate floor time.
  That disables this institution, and it puts the majority under 
immense pressure to do the basic business of passing appropriations 
bills, the very simple operations of government. Very often we hear our 
colleagues on the other side criticize that we have not passed those. 
Those are complaints that are made with real crocodile tears because it 
is the consistent, relentless filibuster that puts the Senate in a 
position where it does not have floor time to do that work.
  I think, first of all, that what we are proposing is slightly 
different than the nuclear option, even though it shares that 
characteristic of getting to 51 votes, that it is unique to the rule 
function of the Senate, that it happens just that once, and that one 
could argue it is a safety valve that protects against situations like 
this.
  My second point is this is not a good situation for the Senate. We 
waste immense amounts of time. The filibuster is used constantly. It 
used to be that Senators filibustered bills that they violently 
opposed. Now the minority filibusters everything. How often have we had 
the experience that something is filibustered and we finally break the 
filibuster and when we actually get to the vote on the actual merits of 
the bill, it passes with 95 or 98 Senators supporting it.
  What do we conclude if you filibuster something that 98 percent of 
Senators are going to support when it finally gets to the floor? We can 
only conclude that it is being used to obstruct and delay. There is too 
much of that. We have too much business to be done. So I do not think 
there is anybody who can say the Senate is working in a way that it 
should under the present practices. If it takes changing a rule to 
change those practices, I think it will be better for everyone.
  I also wish to point out that nobody is saying there should be an end 
to the filibuster. What we are saying is those who want to filibuster 
should carry the burden of being on the floor expressing their concerns 
and actually doing the filibuster. It is one of the great frustrations 
of those who have to defend against the filibuster that very often the 
members of the minority party do not even have to show up for the vote. 
The rule of the filibuster is that we have to get to 60 votes or it 
fails.

[[Page 15467]]

  Whether the vote is 60 to 1 or 60 to 40 does not matter. So we get 
thrown into having to show up and vote on filibusters, and the minority 
party does not even have to be here. We have heard a Senator say: Well, 
you know, you guys, you will be here on Monday because you have this 
vote you have to take. But we do not have to be here, so I am not 
coming back.
  We have had Senators who have actually forced a vote on cloture 
themselves go away when it came time for the vote, go home, and the 
rest of us had to be here to do it at that point. The filibuster is 
just being used to harass colleagues and to create difficulty, and I 
think that is a real problem and that it is worth pressing through it.
  Another concern that Senator Kyl raised is that people's voices would 
be silenced if the majority leader had the authority to go directly to 
a bill without allowing for amendments. Two points on that: First, I, 
for one, am perfectly open to a rule change that provides for some kind 
of an amendment process. As the majority leader said earlier, we have 
our proposal out there, where is yours? If we are going to negotiate, 
make a counterproposal. If the counterproposal contains a requirement 
that certain amendments be considered, a certain number of amendments--
germane amendments, one would hope--I think that is something that a 
great number of Senators on our side would look at with sympathy and, 
perhaps, with approval.
  That is an argument. I don't think it is a sufficient one because I 
do believe we can address that question, every question.
  I would conclude, because I see the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire here, that I think this is an issue we can work out and that 
we can work out together. I think we can make the Senate a better 
place, a place where there is more actual debate and more progress and 
more gets accomplished rather than just this relentless filibuster, 
this filibuster at all times, of all bills, all appointments, over and 
over, nonstop, completely jamming up this body and creating these 
enormous periods of delay while we go through procedural hoops and 
around procedural circles. We should be better than this, and the 
American people deserve better than this.
  I hope this discussion about changing the rules moves us from where 
we are right now--which is just wrong; it just isn't working--to a 
place where we can be a Senate again that requires people who want to 
filibuster to get up on their feet in this Chamber and say what they 
have to say until they are exhausted. So be it. I think that would be 
an improvement on the matters where I would feel strongly enough to 
filibuster, and I am confident that I would be willing to take that 
step in the event we were someday in the minority.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes on 
the topic of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today as not just the Member from 
Delaware but also as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
to speak to the topic before us of the convention and whether the 
United States should ratify a convention on the rights of persons with 
disabilities.
  Our country has long been a global leader in recognizing and 
protecting the basic rights, the human rights of all people, including 
those with disabilities, and of working hard to be at the forefront of 
a global movement to improve access to the basic and essential aspects 
of productive daily life for those with disabilities. Today we have the 
opportunity to help extend those rights, the same rights that disabled 
Americans have to other people around the world. If we have that 
opportunity to promote freedom and human rights, why wouldn't we ensure 
these protections that apply to Americans apply to them abroad as well 
and to others, some of the nearly 1 billion fellow citizens of the 
world who live with disabilities.
  This treaty that is before us today was adopted by the United Nations 
in 2006 with 153 nations as signatories and so far 116 as ratifying 
parties. It has been 6 long years that the United States has not joined 
as a ratifying party. This treaty has passed with strong bipartisan 
support through the Foreign Relations Committee by a vote we took back 
in July after hearings, and it is been nearly 6 months since that vote. 
Yet this treaty, sadly, faces opposition on the floor of the Senate.
  This Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was 
negotiated during the Bush administration, and it enjoys strong 
bipartisan support. I am proud to join Senators McCain, Barrasso, 
Moran, Durbin, Harkin, Udall, and many others who have been advocating 
for its passage since March. It would, as has been said, not require 
any changes to U.S. law and would have no impact on our Federal budget. 
It would instead promote U.S. business interests by creating a level 
playing field for U.S. companies by equalizing accessibility 
requirements that foreign businesses must meet, and it would create new 
markets for innovative U.S. businesses with expertise in standards and 
technologies that would help ease the lives of those with disabilities. 
At least as importantly, it would promote access, mobility, and 
inclusion for disabled Americans abroad, especially wounded veterans.
  Last but not least, it would protect the right of families to 
homeschool their children if they choose to do so, a topic on which my 
office received many concerned calls from constituents. We heard 
directly from the Justice Department during our hearing on the Foreign 
Relations Committee on this convention that ratification of this treaty 
will not in any way erode the rights of parents with disabled children 
to educate their children at home if they so choose.
  In short, Mr. President, ratification only benefits the United States 
and protects Americans. The world has long looked to us as a global 
leader, as a moral compass, as a defender of freedom and human rights. 
In my view, we owe a great debt to many who have served in this Chamber 
before us, including, principally among them, Senator Bob Dole, who, 
along with many others, led the initial fight for the ratification of 
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  The least we can do for people with disabilities all around the world 
is to step to the plate, to ratify this Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities without delay. It is my hope this Senate, in 
a bipartisan way, can come together in the spirit of unity to protect 
dignity and human rights for all.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the ratification of 
this most important treaty.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to speak 
for about 5 minutes on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I am here to join my colleagues, as I had the great 
pleasure of being in the chair for a while this afternoon to hear some 
of the expression of support for the Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities. It was very eloquent, and it was bipartisan. 
I begin by thanking Senators Kerry and Lugar for their efforts in the 
Foreign Relations Committee to not only pass the treaty in committee 
but to bring it to the Senate floor for this consideration.
  I certainly support ratification of the Disabilities Convention 
because it is the right thing to do and because it puts the United 
States back where we belong: as leaders of the international community 
and defending, protecting, and promoting the quality of rights of all 
people in our world, regardless of their situation. From equality and 
nondiscrimination to equal recognition before the law, to access to 
justice, this convention touches on all these issues that Americans 
have long held near and dear to our hearts.
  Ratifying this convention would reaffirm our leadership, leadership 
that

[[Page 15468]]

was established under the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act 
legislation that this Congress passed in 1990. This was the first of 
its kind, domestic legislation that addressed the barriers faced by 
individuals with disabilities. It sent a message to the world that we 
would support the principles of equal treatment and nondiscrimination 
with respect to those with disabilities.
  I want to recognize Senator Tom Harkin for his leadership in getting 
that legislation passed, and it had strong bipartisan support when it 
was passed back in 1990. That legislation still stands as a model for 
those who want to replicate our commitments and defend the rights of 
the disabled in their countries.
  I have had a personal opportunity to see what a difference the 
Americans with Disabilities Act could make in the lives of people, to 
see the impact this convention could have around the world, because I 
grew up before ADA was passed and my grandmother was disabled. She 
couldn't speak or hear. I remember in those days, when she would come 
to visit us--which wasn't very often because she lived a long way 
away--we didn't have any technology to allow her to watch television or 
to answer the phone, the kind of technology that now is available as 
the result of passing the ADA, technology that I would hope, along with 
the human rights that come with passing this convention, will soon be 
available to people in all parts of the world.
  We in the United States are already the gold standard when it comes 
to defending the rights of the disabled. So why would we not want to 
demonstrate to the world our intention to continue to fight for those 
less fortunate?
  This treaty is not only about ending discrimination against people 
with disabilities around the world, it is also about protecting the 
millions of U.S. citizens who travel or live abroad. Ratification will 
provide the United States with a platform from which we can encourage 
other countries to adopt and implement the convention standards and to 
work to end discrimination against people with disabilities.
  Let me just respond to some of the concerns we have heard, and some 
of these have been addressed already. I want to talk about what the 
treaty does not do.
  It in no way, shape, or form infringes on America's sovereignty as a 
nation. It does absolutely nothing to change American law. The treaty 
doesn't impose any legal obligations on the United States, and these 
facts were confirmed by the U.S. Department of Justice during our 
consideration of the measure.
  The convention has overwhelming support from across the political 
spectrum. Over 165 disability organizations support the treaty, as do 
21 major veterans and military service organizations, including the 
VFW, the American Legion, and the Wounded Warrior Project. I can't 
imagine why, at a time when more of our warriors are returning home 
with injuries and disabilities, we would not want to stand in support 
of ensuring their rights and protections at home and around the globe.
  In closing, I want to quote from John Lancaster, who is a disabled 
veteran and the former executive director of the National Council on 
Independent Living, which is one of the oldest disability grassroots 
organizations run by and for people with disabilities. Mr. Lancaster 
testified at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in support of the 
treaty. I think his message was one of the most powerful, and it is one 
that I hope all of our colleagues will heed in thinking about 
consideration of this treaty.
  At the hearing he said:

       I'm appalled with some of the conversation that has been 
     going on here today.

  He was referring to some of the testimony at that hearing. He said:

       As a veteran and as someone who volunteered, laid my life 
     on the line for freedom, rights, dignity, and now, to have 
     this whole debate that we're not willing . . . to walk the 
     talk in international circles? To step up in a forum where 
     they advocate these things and to say ``We're not afraid to 
     sign this thing?''
       We aspire to what's in this convention. This is what we are 
     about as a nation--including people, giving them freedom, 
     giving them rights, giving them the opportunity to work, to 
     learn, to participate. Isn't that what we're about? Isn't 
     that what we want the rest of the world to be about? Well, if 
     we aren't willing to say this is a good thing and to say it 
     formally, what are we about, really?

  I think Mr. Lancaster put it very powerfully, and I couldn't agree 
more with his assessment. This is exactly what we are about as a 
nation. We should ratify this treaty. We should remind the world why 
defending the rights of the disabled is a principle that should be at 
the heart of every civil society.
  Mr. President, I hope when we get to the vote on this convention we 
will see the required votes to ratify this treaty and send to the 
entire world Mr. Lancaster's message.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________