Floor Updates

 ◄ 
 ► 
Today

Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Month
List
Day

Senate Opening

Dec 04 2012 10:00 AM

The Senate Convened.

Reid, McConnell

Opening Remarks

Dec 04 2012 10:24 AM

  • Today -- 
    • The Senate will resume consideration of Treaty Document 112-7, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, with the time until 12:00 PM equally divided. No amendments are in order.
    • At 12:00 PM, the Senate will conduct a ROLL CALL VOTE on ratification of Treaty Document 112-7, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
    • Following the ROLL CALL VOTE, the Senate will recess until 2:15 PM for the weekly caucus lunches.
    • At 2:15 PM, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 3254, the Defense Authorization bill, post-cloture. At a time to be determined, the Senate will conduct a ROLL CALL VOTE on Kyl/Kerry amendment #3123, as modified (Russia) to S. 3254, the Defense Authorization bill.
 
Senator Reid: (10:04 AM)
  • Spoke on the fiscal cliff.
    • SUMMARY "It's been almost three weeks since we all met with the president to avert that fiscal cliff that we hear so much about. Yesterday, after weeks of delay, and as the days dwindle and taxes are set to go up for millions of families and businesses, Republicans in the House finally showed up at the negotiating table. And now we know why they've been holding their cards so close it their vest. Their proposal would raise taxes on millions of middle-class families. Their plan to raise $800 billion in revenue by eliminating popular tax deductions and credits would reach deep into pockets of middle-class families. Republicans are so intent on protecting low tax rates for millionaires and billionaires, they're willing to sacrifice middle-class families' economic security to do so. At the first of the year, middle-class families, will get an average of $2,200 in additional taxes they'll have to pay. Their proposal was short on specifics but we do know from independent analysis that it is impossible to raise enough revenue and make a dent in our deficit without using one of two things - raising tax rates on the top 2% or raising taxes on the middle class. And, as my friend, the senior senator from Missouri, said on the Sunday talk shows, the Speaker has to make a decision whether it is more important to keep his job or to do something about the economy that is in such difficult shape here in America. He has to make a choice. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center called it mathematically impossible to give tax breaks to the rich without harming the middle class. This is something that former President Clinton said during the campaign. It's arithmetic. Given the choice between the millionaires and billionaires and the middle class, the Republicans again sided with the wealthy of this country. Their plan doesn't just keep rates low for the richest 2%, it actually lowers them further."
 
Senator McConnell: (10:09 AM)
  • Spoke on filibuster reform.
    • SUMMARY "My friends on the other side of the aisle have painted a picture where cloture filings are needed to overcome an obstinate minority. Cloture is needed, we're told, because members of the minority refuse to stop delaying. But does filing cloture on a matter, be it a bill, amendment, or conference report, on the very same day the Senate is considering that matter indicate a minority that is prolonging debate or does it indicate a majority that is eager not to have a debate at all? To me, a habitual effort to file cloture on a matter as soon as the senate begins to consider the matter indicates the latter. And what do the numbers show about the use of cloture by this Democratic majority? According to CRS, the current Senate majority has filed cloture on a matter on the very same day it considered the matter three and a half more times than the Senate Republicans did it when they were in the majority. The current Democratic majority has done so well over 100 times. To put it another way, Senate Democrats are much more apt to try to shut off debate on a matter as soon as the Senate begins to consider a matter than were previous majorities, including most recently Senate Republicans. The desire of my Senate colleagues to shut down debate before it begins has nothing to do with overcoming resistance to the Senate take up bills, because as I just noted, this analysis specifically excludes - excludes - same-day cloture filings on the motion to proceed. So, it is not just the right to amend that has taken a hit under the Democratic majority but the right to debate as well. All senators and citizens are disserved. This was not the golden rule we were promised. When the Democrats assumed the majority in 2007, far from it. Rather than continuing to diminish the great traditions of the senate rather than breaking the rules to change the rules ... Because as Senator Byrd noted, majorities are fleeting. One can wake up after the first Tuesday in November and find one's self in the minority. So, I say with respect, I hope our Democratic colleagues are mindful of that as we continue this discussion and are prepared not only to live under the rules they would change but to live with the precedent they would establish by making those changes."
 
Senator Reid: (10:15 AM)
  • Responded.
    • SUMMARY "My friend protests too much. The Senate is broken and needs to be fixed and we need to change the rules. We change them all the time. Last year we changed the rules. Why? Because what they were doing - Republicans - just to stop and slow down everything, after two cloture votes - remember that takes a long time to file two cloture petitions, a couple of days and then 30 hours. Two cloture votes, 60 hours. You would think the debate was all over. Oh, no, what they decided they were going to do is suspend the rules and have more votes. We put up with it for awhile. A couple here, couple there. The last time they had 15 or 16 motions to suspend the rules. That was enough. They overruled the chair. They can't do that anymore. So what the Republicans have done is bring the Senate to its knees, and that's unfortunate. We need to be able to have the Senate operate the way it should operate. And we need to make sure that people understand how dysfunctional we are and how it needs to move forward. They can say all they want about we need more amendments. Nobody criticizes amendments. But when you spend nine to ten days getting on a bill, you've wasted - you've wasted. Nothing happens during that period of time. Nothing. We do nothing here in the Senate. Everything else comes to a standstill and then they complain because they don't have time to offer amendments?"

Lugar, Inhofe, Kerry, Durbin

Executive Session (Disability Treaty)

Dec 04 2012 10:52 AM

 
Senator Lugar: (10:28 AM)
  • Spoke on the Disability Treaty.
    • SUMMARY "An important factor in my decision to support the convention has been the testimony received by the Foreign Relations Committee that joining the convention will not require any change. And I emphasize that again. Require any change in existing United States law or policies regarding treatment of the disabled. In their statements before Foreign Relations Committee, officials from the Executive Branch as well as former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh stress that current U.S. law satisfies all obligations the United States would assume in joining the convention. In order to underscore the importance of this point, the Foreign Relations Committee specifically addressed it in a declaration in the resolution of advice and consent. The declaration formulated by the Foreign Relations Committee reads as follows, "The Senate declares that in view of the reservations to be included in the instrument of ratification, current United States law fulfills or exceeds the obligations … On a related point, the resolution of advice and consent also underscores the convention will not be self-executing in United States law. This means that its provisions are not directly enforceable in United States courts and do not confer private rights of action enforceable in the United States. These provisions of the resolution of advice and consent establish important parameters for U.S. succession to the convention. They give effect to the intent of the senate that joining the convention will not require any changes in United States laws and policies with regard to the disabled either now or in the future and will not provide a basis for lawsuits in the United States courts. Such matters will continue to be governed solely by United States laws. Now, it is my hope that these provisions in the resolution of advise and consent will provide assurance to members who may be concerned that joining the convention can somehow confer new rights on disabled persons in particular areas or the convention can be used to require the united states to change its laws or policies with respect to the disabled."
 
Senator Inhofe: (10:33 AM)
  • Spoke on the Disability Treaty.
    • SUMMARY "Just to make sure people understand, there are different thoughts on this convention. It seems as if most of the times when the UN treaties come up, I have been opposed to them. My concern has always been that of sovereignty. I do oppose the CRPD because I think does impinge upon our sovereignty, establishing an unelected United Nations body called the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the conference of state parties. These unelected bureaucratic bodies would implement the treaty and pass so-called recommendations that would be forced upon the United Nations and the U.S. as if the U.S. senior senator a signatory … We don't need the United Nations bureaucrats changing it in our country in the name of worldwide application. While the Obama administration affirms that no changes to the federal or state law will be necessary, if the CRPD is ratified, the CRPD can be amended. The senator from Indiana talked about the fact that there are really no changes in this. But it can be amended by the bureaucrats and, therefore, require changes into U.S. law. Further, the ability of the committee on the rights of persons with disabilities is - to investigate and recommendation changes chips away at the ability of a sovereign nation to govern itself. I know there are a lot of people who feel that no idea is a real good idea unless it comes from an international organization. I kind of follow at the other end of the spectrum."
 
Senator Kerry: (10:39 AM)
  • Responded.
    • SUMMARY "It is important in this kind of debate as we make a judgment as senators that we base our judgment on facts and on the reality. The senator has suggested that he is opposed to this treaty because an outside group could impose their will on the United States of America. What he has just acknowledged is, it can't do that because it would require the advice and consent of the Senate. But, secondly, is the senator aware that Senator Risch asked the Justice Department whether or not the court interpreted the effect of a nonself-executing declaration in this treaty, the court said, the United States ratified the international covenant on the express understanding that it was not self-executing. And so it did not create obligations enforceable in the federal courts. So the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the very standard being applied in this treaty - that it's not self-executing - means nobody who is a access to any court, there is no enforceable right against anybody in America created in this treaty."
 
Senator Durbin: (10:41 AM)
  • Spoke on the Disability Treaty.
    • SUMMARY "Now comes this treaty to the floor and this treaty says to the world, what we did 22 years ago as a nation is something we are proud to stand behind. It is basically an ideal that we've created in America that we want to export to the world. And as we reflect on this debate - and you've heard some of those who oppose it - it is interesting the approach that they're taking. They are fearful of change. They are fearful of what the expansion of opportunity for the disabled might mean to America. Senator Kerry has made the point very clearly - this convention, this treaty will not require the United States to change any law. If any changes are to be made in the future, they will be made with the workings of Congress and the president. This treaty, this convention will not force that change. We meet all of the standards that are established in this convention when it comes to disabilities. And President George Herbert Walker Bush, a Republican, when he negotiated and crafted this treaty said as much. And of course there are those who still question it. But remember, every time we have opened this door of opportunity in America, every time we have expanded this definition of democracy to include another group that was being at least partially, if not fully, excluded, there have always been voice of concern and worry. There have been those who said maybe we're not ready for that much change. They would say I'm not opposed to people of color. But if you force every hotel and restaurant across America and interstate commerce to open their doors, that may be going too far. We've always heard those voices. And after listening patiently, we have ignored them and moved forward with a new definition of freedom in this country, a new definition of opportunity. And that's what this does."

Lee, Kerry, Udall-NM

Executive Session (Disability Treaty)

Dec 04 2012 11:08 AM

Senator Lee: (10:48 AM)
  • Spoke on the Disability Treaty.
    • SUMMARY "I rise to speak in opposition to the ratification on the U.S. persons with disabilities. This I understand is a sensitive topic, one which many of my constituents on both sides of the issue have strong feelings. Most of us, if not all of us have a family member or a friend with a disability. All of us live in a society that includes the disabled as highly valued members of our communities. I've heard from advocacy groups consisting of people who hope and believe that this treaty will protect disabled Americans as they travel abroad and as they go about their lives. But I've also heard from parents of disabled children who are concerned that this treaty, in adherence to the best interests of the child's standards in Article 7, will threaten their rights as parents to determine the best education, treatment and care for their disabled children. Proponents of this treaty will dismiss those concerns as myth, but I simply cannot support a treaty that threatens the right of parents to raise their children with the constant looming threat of state interference. If this vote and this treaty were in fact about protecting the rights of Americans with disabilities, I might have a different position, and the debate today would take on a very different tone. But this treaty is ultimately not about protecting the rights of Americans with disabilities because this treaty has no enforcement mechanism to protect those rights, the rights of disabled Americans, including veterans that might travel to countries such as China, Russia or Mali or any other country that might choose to adopt this treaty. If the Senate desires to protect the rights of disabled Americans who travel abroad, the Senate would do better to encourage other nations to model their own reforms, own internal legal structures after the Americans with Disabilities Act which 20 years after its passage still sends a message that disabled Americans will always have fair access to housing, employment and education in this nation."
 
Senator Kerry: (10:54 AM)
  • Responded.
    • SUMMARY "Can the senator show where it is specifically when the Supreme Court has held this is not self-executing, there is no access to American courts, when it is clear by the statements of the treaty itself, there is no law of the United States that is changed. When Attorney General Thornburgh, who helped to negotiate this on behalf of President George Bush, says there is no change in law, what is it that the senator suddenly has that suggests otherwise that has any basis in fact?"
 
Senator Lee: (10:55 AM)
  • Responded.
    • SUMMARY "First of all, whenever we ratify a treaty, it becomes the law of the land under Article 6, U.S. constitution. Secondly, whenever we have a body of law, whether embodied in a UN convention or otherwise, it becomes part of the corpus of customary international law that often makes its way into judicial U.S. opinions. Is it direct? No. Does it directly undo any statute? No. But that doesn't mean it has no effect. If it had no effect, we wouldn't be here debating it today. It's the type of effect that we worry about when i see things differently as far as what type of effect it might have. But that is not to say that it has no effect. We shouldn't be ratifying a treaty that we think might offset U.S. law as it exists now. And we believe that this could have that impact. Now exactly where that's going to come up, I can't prove to you where that's going to happen. But it does have some impact. And when we ratify a treaty, we make it the law of the land."
 
Senator Kerry: (10:56 AM)
  • Responded.
    • SUMMARY "The senator has acknowledged that it doesn't become customary law as a consequence. It has to somehow change. And within this - the senator will agree that because the treaty adopts in the body of the treaty the statement that this is not self-executing and the Supreme Court has held that a non-executing treaty - let me reference the specific case. Sosa v Alvarez, a 2004 case, the Supreme Court said that it's dispositive, nonself-executing declaration is dispositive. The court noted United States ratified and said it's not - it does not create obligations enforceable if federal courts. So there's no obligation created here. Now the senator then said, why would we do this? Well, because we are the gold standard. And every other country is encouraged - encouraged. We can't require them. But they're encouraged to raise their standard to United States standards. So why would the senator resist? I know the senator and many of his colleagues argue we want other countries to be more like America. This is a treaty that in fact embraces that notion that they must be more like America. Why would the senator not embrace that?"
 
Senator Lee: (10:58 AM)
  • Responded.
    • SUMMARY "If my distinguished colleague and friend, the senior senator from Massachusetts, is correct that this would have no impact on our law, if in fact it does nothing, why would we make it part of U.S. law? Why would make it law of the land by ratifying it and making it the law of the land under Article 6 of the U.S.  constitution? What table is it at which we have no seat because we have not ratified this treaty? What is it that we cannot do by having the most aggressive, most robust laws protecting Americans with disabilities that we somehow achieve simply because we ratify this if in fact this does nothing more than embrace that set of laws that we've already passed? And if in fact, as my friend says, this does nothing, then why do we ratify it?"
 
Senator Kerry: (10:59 AM)
  • Responded.
    • SUMMARY "Let me make it clear to the senator that I've not said that it does nothing. I have said that it does not require a change in American law. I have said that it does not obligate the United States to a new set of standards or anything different from what we do today. I have said that it does not allow anybody access to the federal courts. That's different from saying it doesn't do anything. If it didn't do anything, I wouldn't be here either, and nor would George Bush have signed this. Nor would George Herbert Walker Bush have begun the negotiations. This is not a Democrat-inspired treaty. This is a universally accepted set of principles about how we would like to see people in the rest of the world treat people with disabilities."
 
Senator Udall-NM: (11:00 AM)
  • Spoke on the Disability Treaty.
    • SUMMARY "It is a vital step forward in respecting the rights of the disabled. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I am aware of the challenges that many countries face. These challenges include supporting their disabled citizens. Our nation has set the standard for improving access to buildings, technology, and other areas for the disabled. Without the U.S. accepting its leadership role, it's possible that different standards could be adopted internationally. This would, for one example, place disabled travelers at a disadvantage. They would be forced to deal with different standards while traveling overseas. And in many countries, there has been insignificant investment to improve access for the disabled and there is a misunderstanding about what rights disabled persons should be afforded. Ratifying this treaty will help the U.S. clarify to the world that people with disabilities have dignity, that they are capable of living full and meaningful lives. For instance, Article 6 of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities addresses the issue of women with disabilities. The article provides that state parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure the full development, advancement, and empowerment of women for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of the human rights and fundamental freedoms set out in the convention. Many countries are falling short in protecting the rights of women. It is tragic that so many women are subject to human rights abuses in a number of countries. Secretary of State Clinton has made empowering women an important part of our diplomatic priorities, and I support her efforts. Fortunately for the United States, we do not need to implement additional in order to be in full compliance with the legislation. Laws such as the Civil Rights Act, Title 9, the Family Leave Act strengthen our position."

Coons, Harkin, Sessions

Executive Session (Disability Treaty)

Dec 04 2012 11:29 AM

 
Senator Coons: (11:06 AM)
  • Spoke on the Disability Treaty.
    • SUMMARY "To the senators who've spoken pointedly about their fears, their concerns about home schooling, I listened while presiding, while Senator Inhofe spoke about his youngest daughter who home-schools her kids. Their fear that this could hand the power to an unelected group of bureaucrats to direct the schooling of children in Oklahoma, and I heard Senator Lee of Utah add to that negative chorus, a question - he said, I have justifiable doubts that a UN committee in Geneva can judge the best interests of children in Utah. I agree. And this convention does nothing to empower an international convention of bureaucrats to direct the schooling of children in Delaware, in West Virginia, in Indiana, or in Massachusetts. And I am frankly upset that they have succeeded in scaring the parents who home school their children all over this country. My own office has gotten dozens of calls and letters demanding that I vote against this convention as a mast international law and as a matter of U.S. law, this convention does nothing - does nothing - to change the home schooling of children in America. Rather, it does something positive … This treaty would allow our voice to be heard in international forums all over the world. A billion citizens of this world live with disabilities every day. And  our voice deserves to be heard when we open the senate every day, we say the pledge of allegiance. And at the end of it, we hold up our standard - liberty and justice for all."
 
Senator Harkin: (11:09 AM)
  • Spoke on the Disability Treaty.
    • SUMMARY "It was 21 years later when we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. And the country has changed so much for the better because of that. And now what we are, we're sitting here now with a convention by the UN that basically says to the rest of the world, you know what? You got to do what America did, because the UN, in establishing this convention, was informed by the Americans with Disabilities Act and a lot of it is based upon what we did here. As the committee shows, not one of our laws or anything has to be changed - not one - because we are the best in the world at this. Yet what this convention gives us, it gives us a seat at the table when other countries have signed on to the treaty. It gives us a seat at the table, to be able to work with other countries and to help them upgrade their laws so that people with disabilities have more opportunities in other countries. Why would we deny ourselves a seat at the table? When we have been the leader in this effort for so long? I listened to the speeches by both Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma and Senator Lee from Utah, and I - these are unfounded fears. Unfounded fears. There's nothing in here, I repeat, that is going to allow anyone from the United Nations to take a child away from a family or tell a family they can't home-school a kid or nothing like that. These are just totally unfounded fears. We should not be driven by unfounded fears. We should be driven by what we know of our experience. And what we have done and what the wording of the convention and that the fact that none of our laws have to be changed because of it. The other point I wanted to make is the senator from Utah made the point that we all know people with disabilities. We have family members or friends. And we value them. We truly do value people with disabilities in our society. Well, if we truly value them, why don't we listen to them? Over 300 disability rights groups support this. Not one - not one said they won't support it. So if we value them, why don't we listen to them? Or do we just want to keep patron patronizing them? We won't listen to you because we know what is best for you. We don't know what's best for people with disabilities. You know what's best for people with disabilities? People with disabilities. And they all say - 300 disability organizations asking us to support this ratification. So I think we should listening to them and listen and get their advice."
 
Senator Sessions: (11:17 AM)
  • Spoke on the Disability Treaty.        
    • SUMMARY "A treaty is a powerful document equal to or above sometimes perhaps statutory law. Historically treaties are to regulate the relationship between sovereign nations. They do things like settle border disputes and enter into trading relations between those two nations. And while treaties on occasion have a blurred deadline between international relations, the line, the principle still remains a good one and fundamentally intact. This nation has on a few occasions but only a few ratified a treaty in which the entire focus, maybe never when the entire focus has been to empower an international agency, here the United Nations, an organization that truly is proving to be dysfunctional and often hostile to the most legitimate interests of the united states. To monitor the internal policies of the United States. Monitor and tell us how we ought to operate. This is particularly curious in that the United States has the world's best record on disability issues. We lead the world in those. So we're told, let's ratify the treaty because we already meet at least today. All the requirements of the treaty and all these commissions that are going to be established, and that will be fine. And we'll set an example worldwide on advancing the legitimate cause of the disabled. Well, in truth, I think we've already set an example. We already have the most advanced laws in the world. We do lead the world. This treaty, however, has misdirected the focus of the United States and the world community, I think, in a way to focus on the United States instead of really the lack of action by so many other nations around the world. We have a most magnificent system of law. It is the foundation of our liberty, our prosperity and our happiness. Thus, if we were to ratify this treaty, we can be sure that a lot of international hypocrites will soon demand the United States do this or that. All the while their countries would have been in full violation of virtually overprovision of the treaty. That's the way it works in the United Nations. Many other mischievous actions will certainly arise to bedevil our country and we'll have hypocritical meddlers complicating our internal efforts and our internal social and health policies."

McCain, Kyl, Kerry

Executive Session (Disability Treaty)

Dec 04 2012 12:06 PM

Senator McCain: (11:27 AM)
  • Spoke on the Disability Treaty.
    • SUMMARY "I come to the floor with a bit of a heavy heart today because I think the Senate may not act to approve the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I would say the issue is not going away. I think the there are too many Americans and too many veterans organizations, too many people who are committed to this cause that over time we may have every chance, every opportunity to succeed."
 
Senator Kyl: (11:38 AM)
  • Spoke on the Disability Treaty.
    • SUMMARY "I rise today in opposition to the ratification of the CRPD. The United States has a long and proud tradition of protecting human rights, especially those of the disabled. I don't believe that we need to ratify an international convention to demonstrate our firm commitment in this area. CRPD ratification could do nothing to improve the lives of the disabled in the United States, and if other countries are looking for good examples of how to improve their laws, they could do no better than to refer to U.S. laws. Just as with many treaties before this one, the CRPD would offer cover to regimes that have no intention of actually helping their citizens, while needlessly tying the hands of countries like the United States that have actually made great strides in this area. I take China as just one example. According to Human Rights Watch, Chinese citizens, even suspected of having a mental disability can be arbitrarily committed to institutions because Chinese law offers no protections against involuntary civil commitment. Moreover, Beijing is now considering a draft mental health disability law that would, and I quote, "permit the indefinite involuntary detention, forced medication and forced labor of persons suspected of having a mental disability." Obviously, this is a direct contravention to both the spirit and the letter of the CRPD. Even though Beijing has ratified it. I repeat, even though Beijing has already ratified the treaty. So while this convention has no mechanism to force countries like China to actually respect their disabled citizens, what it does do is allow their leaders to falsely present themselves as forward leading on disabled rights, just as they continue to run roughshod over such protections at home."
 
Senator Kerry: (11:46 AM)
  • Responded.
    • SUMMARY "I would say to him very respectfully that there really is no contradiction in the position of the proponents of this bill, and while I understand what he said about China, the fact is that because China has signed up and Russia and other countries, if we were a party to this and at the table discussing it we would have greater leverage in order to be able to advance the rights of persons in China and elsewhere. Now, don't take that from me, I would say to the senator from Arizona, Guangcheng Chen is the activist in China who sought refuge in America for a brief period of time, his family has suffered and he has written a letter to us and says, "Dear senators, I am writing to personally ask your support for the convention for the rights of persons with disabilities. As he says, my rights began were afforded the same rights as everyone else. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is making this idea real and in significant ways around the world today. And he goes on to say that I'm hopeful you will support ratification and allow others to benefit from these triumphs. And he's referring to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the other things we've done."
 
Senator Kyl: (11:49 AM)
  • Responded.
    • SUMMARY "First of all I want to say to my colleague from Massachusetts that I have very much enjoyed the conversations we've had and perhaps even more so when we've been in disagreement because we have brought out I think important points on a variety of issues so I always appreciate his views on these things. But secondly, since you specifically referred to the points I made let me just respond in one way … the argument that people who have a deep belief in trying to pursue a particular human right or other goal believe that getting together in the international community and talking about these things is a useful exercise. It's hard to argue in the abstract with that proposition so I can understand the letters that would be written. The hard reality is there are nation states like China who like to sign up for organizations and gain the reputation for doing good things while in fact not doing good things, as I pointed out. So to some extent it can serve the offense goal of giving cover to countries that really have no intention of acting in good faith or in the good ways we have demonstrated as the United States and that's one of the problems here. And so I do acknowledge and I'll not use any more of your time here, but when one of two things is true, either it is fairly meaningless or it is really meaningful and I don't think you can make both arguments in support of our signing up for the treaty."
 
Senator Kerry: (11:51 AM)
  • Spoke on the Disability Treaty.
    • SUMMARY "How is it possible that a treaty that according to our Supreme Court offers no recourse, no change in American law, no access to American courts, how is it possible that such a treaty could threaten anybody in our country? The answer is simple, it doesn't, and it can't. But let's go through the arguments one by one. First they say it would undermine our sovereignty. I've heard several people suggest that. You know, the laws governing the disabled. Well, that's wrong. And Senator Lee just admitted it doesn't affect any law in the United States. All it does is create a committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. What can this committee do? All it can do is review reports and make a suggestion. Are we scared in the United States of America of someone making a suggestion to us about how we might do something? Has no recourse in the court, no legal standing. The Foreign Relations Committee even included language in the resolution of advice and consent to make it crystal clear. So what are we afraid of? That the committee would give us this advice? The second misconception is that this will allow the federal government acting under UN instructions to determine what is best for children with disabilities. Again, that is just flat wrong. The treaty does not give the federal government or any state government any new powers with respect to children with disabilities. It doesn't change the balance of power between federal and state government. It doesn't require any change to existing state or federal law. The Justice Department, former Republican Attorney General Dick Thornburgh testified before the Foreign Relations Committee that any assertion to the contrary is incorrect and our committee even included language in the resolution of advice and consent to absolutely crystallize those limitations. And finally there are those who argue that a lame-duck session is the inappropriate time for senators to consider this treaty. My colleagues, please. Since the 1970's alone the United States Senate has approved treaties during lame-duck sessions a total of 19 times. There's nothing special or different about a lame duck. It's a session of the United States Congress. And just as we are going to consider important fiscal matters, we should consider other important matters. Our constituents expect us to do our jobs, and there's no difference between a lame duck or a dead duck or a regular duck. We ought to be here doing our jobs. More than any of the straw men, though, we've had to deal with in this debate there is, in fact, something much bigger at stake here. This treaty and this vote will say a great deal about how we are in the United States Senate and who we are as a country."

Vote Results (Ratification)

Executive Session (Disability Treaty)

Dec 04 2012 12:29 PM

Not Agreed to, 61-38:
Resolution of Ratification of Treaty Document 112-7, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2/3 majority required).
The vote results will be posted here within one hour.