John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator further, I know he is a good student of law, practitioner of law. I believe he understands that a treaty does not become customary international law just because the United States or another country ratifies it. The Senator is aware of that, I assume?

Mr. KERRY. Can the Senator show where it is specifically when the Supreme Court has held this is not self-executing, there is no access to American courts; when it is clear by the statements of the treaty itself there is no law of the United States that is changed? When Attorney General Thornburgh, who helped to negotiate this treaty on behalf of President George Bush, says there is no change in law, what is it that the Senator suddenly has that suggests otherwise that has any basis in fact?

Mr. KERRY. Does the Senator agree that there is no power to change our law?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator, and I understand there are colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have concerns about the United Nations, and I respect that. We have had these fights before, but I am having difficulty finding where the threat that the Senator has described gains any reality. Specifically, with respect to children, the Senator mentioned the question of a committee being created, and sometimes committees make recommendations outside of the purview of something. That may be true. But when have words, I ask the Senator--when have words or suggestions that have no power, that cannot be implemented, that have no access to the courts, that have no effect on the law of the United States and cannot change the law of the United States--when has that ever threatened anybody in our country?

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KERRY. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is important in this kind of debate as we make a judgment with the Senators that we base our judgment on facts and on the reality. The Senator has suggested he is opposed to this treaty because an outside group could impose its will on the United States of America. What he has just acknowledged is they can't do that because it would require the advice and consent of the Senate. But, secondly, is the Senator aware that Senator Risch asked the Justice Department whether the Court interpreted the effect of a nonself-executing declaration--which is in this treaty? And the response is, the Court said: The United States ratified the international covenant on civil and political rights on the express understanding that it was not self-executing. And so it did not create obligations enforceable in the Federal courts. So the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the very standard being applied in this treaty, that it is not self-executing, means nobody has access to any court. There is no enforceable right against anybody in America created in this treaty.

Mr. KERRY. The Senator has raised the specter of somehow there would be a change in this treaty at some point that might affect America. Is the Senator not aware that any change to a treaty, in order to go into effect and have any impact on the United States, would require the advice and consent of the United States Senate?

Mr. KERRY. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would inform the Senator from Oklahoma that we have agreed to simply proceed, hopefully alternating from side to side. We have about 48 minutes on each side, and I have yielded 10 minutes to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, that is fine. I accept that. What I am trying to do is to use this debate period, important as it is, as effectively as possible on both sides. I see there is a Member from the other side who is in opposition, so I withdraw my request, and I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are now, as everybody knows, on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It is my understanding that we have about 48 minutes for each side. I would ask the opponents of the treaty to do what we normally do, which is go back and forth from one side to the other. I notice there is no one here for the other side, so what we will do is use up a component of our time, and then, because they are not here, I think it would be fair not to chew up the time in a quorum call. So I ask unanimous consent that if the opponents on the other side are not ready to speak or to use their time, that the quorum call be charged against them because I don't think we should give up our time as a result of their simply not being here. So I ask unanimous consent that if there is a quorum and we are not speaking, the time be charged to their side.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons.

Mr. KERRY. Without the advice and consent of the Senate, no change could possibly impact the United States.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask that time be logged to both sides.

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.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President.

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. 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.

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.

Mr. KERRY

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.

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, 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 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.'' 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.