These Senators from the US Committee on Foreign Relations firmly stood up for the United States Constitution. Their testimony is as follows:
X. MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATORS RISCH, RUBIO,
INHOFE, DEMINT, AND LEE
During the foundational years of our country, the leaders who
charted its course warned us about foreign entanglements that
would undermine our sovereignty and threaten our domestic affairs.
So strong was his concern that President George Washington
focused part of his farewell address on this issue. President Thomas
Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, stated:
Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—
entangling alliances with none.
The Founders wisely cautioned future generations of Americans
against foreign entanglements such as the U.N. Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The admirable goal of advancing
the interests of disabled people does not necessitate ascension
to an international treaty that will assume the same legal authority
as the Constitution upon ratification.
The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate for
treaty ratification, which demonstrates the seriousness and concern
the framers of the Constitution held for such international accords.
They sought to ensure these agreements were comprehensively
scrutinized, overwhelmingly supported, and ratified only when vital
U.S. national interests were advanced.
The Foreign Relations Committee passed this Convention out of
committee just two months after it was first presented to the Senate.
Members of the Committee were given one opportunity to discuss
the merits of and their concerns with the treaty in a single
hearing that included both proponents of the treaty and opposition
witnesses. We voted on the Resolution of Ratification shortly thereafter.
To say the least, this treaty has not been properly or thoroughly
scrutinized. Furthermore, not all the members of the committee
have full confidence that the language of the treaty or the
Resolution of Ratification will fully protect the interests or the sovereignty
of the United States.
Language in the Convention that specifically references domestic
issues outside the realm of ″disabilities″ requires further explanation.
Article 25(a) of the Convention addresses the range and
quality of health care, including ″sexual and reproductive health″.
The previous Administration found it necessary to submit statements
explicitly declaring that these terms do not include abortion.
Poland, Malta, and Monaco made similar reservations when they
signed the treaty. However, no language defining sexual and reproductive
health has been placed in the Administration’s instrument
of ratification, and an attempt to do so in the Foreign Relations
Committee was defeated. We are particularly concerned about this
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
18
issue because Secretary Clinton stated in 2009 in front of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee that:
We happen to think that family planning is an important
part of women’s health, and reproductive health includes
access to abortion, that I believe should be safe,
legal, and rare.
Abortion remains a highly controversial issue in the United
States, and we strongly believe it should be determined by State
and local governments, not at an international level.
Through the admission of this Administration we know the treaty
will not improve the rights of the disabled in the United States.
Our country has already set the highest standard for treatment of
and assistance to the disabled; so much so that the drafters of this
Convention used U.S. laws and regulations to build its framework.
As for the disabled in other countries, there is little evidence available
to suggest this Convention will assist other nations’ efforts to
improve their disabilities standards. Of the 117 member countries,
the Convention’s committee only has issued recommendations for
improvements to three countries: Tunisia, Spain, and Malta.
The United States Constitution guarantees certain rights to the
American people—rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of
worship, and freedom from slavery. The United States Constitution
does not provide the right to be subjected to an action of another
person or group—nor should any treaty or alliance to which the
United States subjects itself. Should the United States accede to
this treaty, we will be obligated to write a status report every four
years regarding our disability laws and receive criticism and recommendations
from a committee of representatives from countries
that have lower standards for the disabled than our own. This undermines
our sovereignty and our Constitution. According to Article
35 of the Convention, this report must include a list and description
of measures taken to fulfill the obligations of the treaty.
We do not know the scope of this report or its financial and labor
costs to the American taxpayer.
As noted in hearing testimony, similar committees born of other
United Nations conventions have an extensive record of overstepping
their authority and making recommendations that are contrary
to the interests and values of the United States. For example,
the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issued
a report in 2008 that addressed issues well beyond the scope of its
mandate, such as U.S policies regarding the death penalty, voting
rights, and detention at Guantanamo Bay. The Committee associated
with the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination
Against Women brashly issued recommendations regarding
the legalization of prostitution, gender quotas, and increased
termination of pregnancies.
Proponents of this treaty believe its ratification would signal to
the world our commitment to advancing the interests of those with
disabilities. The U.S. Senate should not ratify this or any other
treaty on these grounds. In this particular instance, the United
States enjoys the moral high ground because we lead the world in
advancing the interests of the disabled. We rightly reject the idea
that our moral authority in the world is ever derived through ascension
to subjective international conventions.
INHOFE, DEMINT, AND LEE
During the foundational years of our country, the leaders who
charted its course warned us about foreign entanglements that
would undermine our sovereignty and threaten our domestic affairs.
So strong was his concern that President George Washington
focused part of his farewell address on this issue. President Thomas
Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, stated:
Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—
entangling alliances with none.
The Founders wisely cautioned future generations of Americans
against foreign entanglements such as the U.N. Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The admirable goal of advancing
the interests of disabled people does not necessitate ascension
to an international treaty that will assume the same legal authority
as the Constitution upon ratification.
The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate for
treaty ratification, which demonstrates the seriousness and concern
the framers of the Constitution held for such international accords.
They sought to ensure these agreements were comprehensively
scrutinized, overwhelmingly supported, and ratified only when vital
U.S. national interests were advanced.
The Foreign Relations Committee passed this Convention out of
committee just two months after it was first presented to the Senate.
Members of the Committee were given one opportunity to discuss
the merits of and their concerns with the treaty in a single
hearing that included both proponents of the treaty and opposition
witnesses. We voted on the Resolution of Ratification shortly thereafter.
To say the least, this treaty has not been properly or thoroughly
scrutinized. Furthermore, not all the members of the committee
have full confidence that the language of the treaty or the
Resolution of Ratification will fully protect the interests or the sovereignty
of the United States.
Language in the Convention that specifically references domestic
issues outside the realm of ″disabilities″ requires further explanation.
Article 25(a) of the Convention addresses the range and
quality of health care, including ″sexual and reproductive health″.
The previous Administration found it necessary to submit statements
explicitly declaring that these terms do not include abortion.
Poland, Malta, and Monaco made similar reservations when they
signed the treaty. However, no language defining sexual and reproductive
health has been placed in the Administration’s instrument
of ratification, and an attempt to do so in the Foreign Relations
Committee was defeated. We are particularly concerned about this
VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
18
issue because Secretary Clinton stated in 2009 in front of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee that:
We happen to think that family planning is an important
part of women’s health, and reproductive health includes
access to abortion, that I believe should be safe,
legal, and rare.
Abortion remains a highly controversial issue in the United
States, and we strongly believe it should be determined by State
and local governments, not at an international level.
Through the admission of this Administration we know the treaty
will not improve the rights of the disabled in the United States.
Our country has already set the highest standard for treatment of
and assistance to the disabled; so much so that the drafters of this
Convention used U.S. laws and regulations to build its framework.
As for the disabled in other countries, there is little evidence available
to suggest this Convention will assist other nations’ efforts to
improve their disabilities standards. Of the 117 member countries,
the Convention’s committee only has issued recommendations for
improvements to three countries: Tunisia, Spain, and Malta.
The United States Constitution guarantees certain rights to the
American people—rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of
worship, and freedom from slavery. The United States Constitution
does not provide the right to be subjected to an action of another
person or group—nor should any treaty or alliance to which the
United States subjects itself. Should the United States accede to
this treaty, we will be obligated to write a status report every four
years regarding our disability laws and receive criticism and recommendations
from a committee of representatives from countries
that have lower standards for the disabled than our own. This undermines
our sovereignty and our Constitution. According to Article
35 of the Convention, this report must include a list and description
of measures taken to fulfill the obligations of the treaty.
We do not know the scope of this report or its financial and labor
costs to the American taxpayer.
As noted in hearing testimony, similar committees born of other
United Nations conventions have an extensive record of overstepping
their authority and making recommendations that are contrary
to the interests and values of the United States. For example,
the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issued
a report in 2008 that addressed issues well beyond the scope of its
mandate, such as U.S policies regarding the death penalty, voting
rights, and detention at Guantanamo Bay. The Committee associated
with the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination
Against Women brashly issued recommendations regarding
the legalization of prostitution, gender quotas, and increased
termination of pregnancies.
Proponents of this treaty believe its ratification would signal to
the world our commitment to advancing the interests of those with
disabilities. The U.S. Senate should not ratify this or any other
treaty on these grounds. In this particular instance, the United
States enjoys the moral high ground because we lead the world in
advancing the interests of the disabled. We rightly reject the idea
that our moral authority in the world is ever derived through ascension
to subjective international conventions.
Source Link: CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITHDISABILITIES (TREATY DOC. 112–7) Specified on pages 17-18.
Stop The United Nations In Utah!
Stop The United Nations In Utah!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.