No, I haven't lost it. I'm just stupefied by recent Senate action. Last week the Senate ratified more than one treaty. It ratified four. They dealt with international cooperation on rules related to catching fish. That's right, fish. I guess when it comes to fish the Constitution, sovereignty, and the UN telling us what to do are not problems. These treaties passed on a voice vote. That means there was no roll call votes. If you want to read all about the details try a blog post by Hayes Brown. It is excellent and I will not duplicate it here.
Now we could look at this development in one of two ways. We could conclude that the Senate recognizes that we are part of the world community; it makes enormous sense to work together to make this planet a better place; and the UN is not the bogeyman. Or, we could conclude that money talks and unlike the U.S. fishing industry we don't have enough.
I prefer to endorse the first conclusion. That is, at least for a moment many senators are now rethinking their general opposition to UN treaties. They're willing to take a second look at the CRPD. They are willing to recognize that doing things as part of the world community is a good thing to do. They're willing to recognize that international cooperation extends to things like disability rights. They are willing to understand that much good and no harm will come from U.S. ratification of the CRPD.
Senators' recent actions related to fish give us an opportunity to say, "We are aware of your recent voice votes on the FOUR fish treaties. Are you ready to give us a voice vote on the CRPD? We hope so." You know, there is only two things elected officials dislike as much as bad press -- being seen as inconsistent and unresponsive to constituents.
Thank you.
Common Grounder
Friday, April 11, 2014
Monday, April 7, 2014
Senator Santorum and the CRPD
Senator Santorum
opposes ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities. His latest comments, an opinion piece in Town Hall, today
-- What the U.N. Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Conceals – expands his previous arguments related to parents’ rights, but makes no new
or convincing points. I am excited. This is my 60th post on the
CRPD. The fact that Senator Santorum is sharing his version of reality with us, once again, must mean that those of us who support ratification are gaining in
momentum, otherwise, Senator Santorum and the rest of the opposition would have
stayed under the radar. I have countered all the points Senator Santorum makes
in his piece in my earlier blog posts. Nonetheless I thought it would make
sense to set up a point-counterpoint framework for everyone on a few points
Senator Santorum makes.
Point/Counterpoint
SS. Embracing the United Nations’ “it takes a village” mentality,
CRPD would empower the federal government to run roughshod over existing laws
that protect parents’ and children’s rights….
The treaty’s
supporters tell us that CRPD simply mirrors the Americans with Disabilities
Act. Don’t buy that. The ADA is very specific and limited in its scope. Anyone
who actually reads the CRPD will see that it is a blunt instrument.
CG. The
ratification package the President sent to the Senate includes three
reservations. One of the reservations deals with federalism, the division of
authority between the federal and state governments. It references the ADA as
our means of complying with the CRPD.
Federalism. To the extent that state and local
governments exercise jurisdiction over issues covered by the convention, U.S.
obligations under the convention are limited to the U.S. government taking
measures appropriate to the federal system, such as enforcement under the ADA,
with the ultimate objective of full implementation of the convention.
So if the Senate ratifies the CRPD,
state laws would not be impacted or need to be changed unless a state’s
legislature decides to amend them.
SS. The ADA carefully defines “disability,” making the scope of the law clear. The drafters of CRPD, however, specifically rejected a clear definition of “disability,” asserting that “disability is an evolving concept.” Really? What will the U.N. consider to be a disability in the future, after we have ratified the treaty?
SS. The ADA carefully defines “disability,” making the scope of the law clear. The drafters of CRPD, however, specifically rejected a clear definition of “disability,” asserting that “disability is an evolving concept.” Really? What will the U.N. consider to be a disability in the future, after we have ratified the treaty?
CG.
I was there when
the drafting committee was debating whether the CRPD should define disability.
It opted to leave it undefined to give countries maximum flexibility. And, in
2008 the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly voted to clarify the U.S. definition of
disability. Disability is an evolving concept.
SS. Repeatedly invoking “international cooperation,” CRPD includes a provision that seems to require member countries to help each other with funding and resources, including the “transfer of technologies.” Will the United Nations at some point decide to impose CRPD dues on Western countries to fund the treaty’s implementation? Will it tell treaty signatories that their patent laws discriminate against the disabled in poor countries and therefore must be ignored?
SS. Repeatedly invoking “international cooperation,” CRPD includes a provision that seems to require member countries to help each other with funding and resources, including the “transfer of technologies.” Will the United Nations at some point decide to impose CRPD dues on Western countries to fund the treaty’s implementation? Will it tell treaty signatories that their patent laws discriminate against the disabled in poor countries and therefore must be ignored?
CG.
This is a real
stretch. Many of us know that U.S. “dues” to the U.N. are substantial, but
not always paid in full or on time. The CRPD won’t affect that pattern.
SS. The ADA had three specific objects: improve the disabled community’s access to society at large, prevent discrimination against the disabled community, and meet these goals in a reasonable, cost-effective way. Most people remember the first two goals of the ADA and forget the third, but the third is important. The ADA exempted small businesses and homeowners from onerous building upgrade requirements and took a forward-looking approach to improving disability access. CRPD would remove these reasonable accommodations. And an administration that has already demonstrated its contempt for reasonable accommodations does not need another tool for imposing costly burdens on small businesses and families.
SS. The ADA had three specific objects: improve the disabled community’s access to society at large, prevent discrimination against the disabled community, and meet these goals in a reasonable, cost-effective way. Most people remember the first two goals of the ADA and forget the third, but the third is important. The ADA exempted small businesses and homeowners from onerous building upgrade requirements and took a forward-looking approach to improving disability access. CRPD would remove these reasonable accommodations. And an administration that has already demonstrated its contempt for reasonable accommodations does not need another tool for imposing costly burdens on small businesses and families.
CG.
Senator Santorum
says because of the CRPD, the reasonable accommodation requirements and the
exemptions for small business in the ADA will be revised by "administration". He
knows better. It would take an act of Congress, no simple or fast undertaking under
ideal conditions.
SS. Supporters of CRPD praise the ADA as the “gold standard” of disability laws and then cite it as a reason to adopt the CRPD. This is a non sequitur; CRPD has nothing to do with the ADA. If President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and the rest of the American left want to see our gold standard become the global standard, they can engage foreign governments directly, right now, to help them improve their laws and modernize their infrastructure. The United States is already the international leader on the protection of disability rights. We don’t need to ratify a flawed U.N. treaty to prove it.
SS. Supporters of CRPD praise the ADA as the “gold standard” of disability laws and then cite it as a reason to adopt the CRPD. This is a non sequitur; CRPD has nothing to do with the ADA. If President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and the rest of the American left want to see our gold standard become the global standard, they can engage foreign governments directly, right now, to help them improve their laws and modernize their infrastructure. The United States is already the international leader on the protection of disability rights. We don’t need to ratify a flawed U.N. treaty to prove it.
CG. To help other
countries improve their laws and modernize their infrastructure we must ratify
the CRPD. That is, if we want he United States TO REMAIN the international
leader on the protection of disability rights.
The end of the point/counterpoint
Those of us who
support ratification of the CRPD are not “the American left”. We reflect the
entire political spectrum. We believe in the power of universal disability
rights and see how it will make our shared planet a better place to live for
everyone. We do not buy twisted logic, fear mongering, and speculation based on
probabilities so outlandish, the only conclusion you can draw is that they are
politically motivated.
Thank you.
Common Grounder
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Senator Harkin and the CRPD
When I was a staff member in the House and then the Senate, I had the opportunity to work with Senator Harkin and his former disability counselor/staff director, Bobby Silverstein, on most disability legislation. Senator Harkin has reached out to us, asking for our personal stories about barriers we encountered when we traveled or worked in other countries. In a simple, straightforward video (http://www.harkin.senate.gov/help/crpdstories.cfm) he explains the connection between the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). He points out the importance of ratification of the CRPD. Over 140 countries have ratified the CRPD. The U.S. has not done so yet. It is the Senate's job to ratify it.
I have written 58 blog posts here on the CRPD. I have had over 7,000 viewers. Recently I lamented that what we were getting from the Senate was silence. It's hard to build momentum with silence. Now with Senator Harkin's message he has broken the silence, and with our stories, will have the ammunition to inspire his colleagues to ratify the CRPD. So tell Senator Harkin your story.
If the U.S. doesn't ratify the treaty, it will have no voice when international standards on accessibility are being developed; fewer and fewer opportunities to help others learn from our experience with the ADA; and no legitimate basis to intervene when Americans with disabilities face discrimination abroad. We don't want that.
Please watch Senator Harkin's video and send him your story. Mine is a doozy! I went to Beijing in 2004. I discovered there were very few western style bathrooms with toilets. The Chinese option was not something I could use. So, I gave up drinking liquids out in public for 9 days. Can you top that?
We probably have four months to make ratification of the CRPD happen. Please contact Senator Harkin and share your story with him. He's waiting for it. Don't disappoint him. There is so much at stake.
Thank you.
Common Grounder
I have written 58 blog posts here on the CRPD. I have had over 7,000 viewers. Recently I lamented that what we were getting from the Senate was silence. It's hard to build momentum with silence. Now with Senator Harkin's message he has broken the silence, and with our stories, will have the ammunition to inspire his colleagues to ratify the CRPD. So tell Senator Harkin your story.
If the U.S. doesn't ratify the treaty, it will have no voice when international standards on accessibility are being developed; fewer and fewer opportunities to help others learn from our experience with the ADA; and no legitimate basis to intervene when Americans with disabilities face discrimination abroad. We don't want that.
Please watch Senator Harkin's video and send him your story. Mine is a doozy! I went to Beijing in 2004. I discovered there were very few western style bathrooms with toilets. The Chinese option was not something I could use. So, I gave up drinking liquids out in public for 9 days. Can you top that?
We probably have four months to make ratification of the CRPD happen. Please contact Senator Harkin and share your story with him. He's waiting for it. Don't disappoint him. There is so much at stake.
Thank you.
Common Grounder
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
The CRPD and Senate Process
I worked for a committee in the House and one in the Senate. One hundred Senators have the same 24 hours a day that the 435 House Representatives have, but the Senators must focus on the needs of all state constituents, not just those in one district. And, Senators must be informed about or be prepared to be informed about the same number of issues as House members. These raw facts mean that Senate staffers who are content experts, especially those on committees, wield a lot of influence. Senators just do not have the time in a day to stay on top of everything.
Given these circumstances, how does an issue become a Senate priority and gain momentum? Certainly the persuasiveness, brains, and commitment of key staff are a factor. So too is the pressure from constituents. Both of these factors played a role in securing strong, educational hearings on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) last November. Up to that point things were textbook perfect.
Now there has been a four month lull of no visible Senate activity. The result -- The impact of individuals telling stories about why the CRPD is important to them have been modest. The number of op eds that have made new or powerful arguments for the CRPD have been few. The television coverage that has occurred hasn't been that enlightening. Letters to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee written by important people, urging ratification, written in 2012, have resurfaced in social media. Things being tried do not appear to have the kind of traction we need to elevate ratification of the CRPD to the Senators' top ten list.
Let me share a little more about the Senate process. Another factor that affects momentum in the Senate is when actual Senators, not staff, start talking to EACH OTHER about an issue. That is when an issue gains traction. That is when things start happening. And finally, once ideas get put on paper, get circulated and considered, when Senators are talking to each other, that's when things REALLY start happening. Evidence of Senators' involvement and interest in the CRPD would motivate staff and inspire those of us who want the CRPD ratified.
What we need is for each of the 61 Senators who support ratification of the CRPD to start talking about it, reaching out to Senators who don't yet (my estimate is 34, we need 6), putting ideas on paper, talking about them, getting them compiled, and polling on which ones have broad support. One former Senator from Delaware, Ted Kaufman, referenced THIS SUMMER as the time we are likely to see Senate action. Well, that time is not that far off. We need three things: (1) a Senate resolution (written document) on the CRPD, (2) a favorable vote on the resolution in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (a simple majority of Senators on the committee voting yes), and (3) a vote by all 100 Senators on the resolution, where at least 67 vote yes.
It's time for those critical conversations among Senators. If Senators do not assume some ownership of the fate of the CRPD now, it won't be ratified in this Congress. Historically, federal disability policy has been bipartisan. The right actions on the CRPD by the Senate could refresh and strengthen that pattern of bipartisanship.
You need do only one thing -- tell your Senator to talk to other Senators about the CRPD NOW.
Thank you.
Common Grounder
Given these circumstances, how does an issue become a Senate priority and gain momentum? Certainly the persuasiveness, brains, and commitment of key staff are a factor. So too is the pressure from constituents. Both of these factors played a role in securing strong, educational hearings on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) last November. Up to that point things were textbook perfect.
Now there has been a four month lull of no visible Senate activity. The result -- The impact of individuals telling stories about why the CRPD is important to them have been modest. The number of op eds that have made new or powerful arguments for the CRPD have been few. The television coverage that has occurred hasn't been that enlightening. Letters to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee written by important people, urging ratification, written in 2012, have resurfaced in social media. Things being tried do not appear to have the kind of traction we need to elevate ratification of the CRPD to the Senators' top ten list.
Let me share a little more about the Senate process. Another factor that affects momentum in the Senate is when actual Senators, not staff, start talking to EACH OTHER about an issue. That is when an issue gains traction. That is when things start happening. And finally, once ideas get put on paper, get circulated and considered, when Senators are talking to each other, that's when things REALLY start happening. Evidence of Senators' involvement and interest in the CRPD would motivate staff and inspire those of us who want the CRPD ratified.
What we need is for each of the 61 Senators who support ratification of the CRPD to start talking about it, reaching out to Senators who don't yet (my estimate is 34, we need 6), putting ideas on paper, talking about them, getting them compiled, and polling on which ones have broad support. One former Senator from Delaware, Ted Kaufman, referenced THIS SUMMER as the time we are likely to see Senate action. Well, that time is not that far off. We need three things: (1) a Senate resolution (written document) on the CRPD, (2) a favorable vote on the resolution in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (a simple majority of Senators on the committee voting yes), and (3) a vote by all 100 Senators on the resolution, where at least 67 vote yes.
It's time for those critical conversations among Senators. If Senators do not assume some ownership of the fate of the CRPD now, it won't be ratified in this Congress. Historically, federal disability policy has been bipartisan. The right actions on the CRPD by the Senate could refresh and strengthen that pattern of bipartisanship.
You need do only one thing -- tell your Senator to talk to other Senators about the CRPD NOW.
Thank you.
Common Grounder
Monday, March 24, 2014
The $64,000 Question
On March 22, 2014, Ted Kaufman, a former U.S. Senator from Delaware (2009-2010, served out Joe Biden's term when Biden became Vice President) had an opinion piece in the News Journal (delawareonline.com).
The thing he said that stood out was -- Senators, who do not want the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) to be ratified, do not like the United Nations. We do not know what that number actually is. There are 45 Republicans in the Senate. Of those, six Republicans are on the record as supporting ratification of the CRPD -- Ayotte (NH), Barrasso (WY), Collins (ME), Kirk (IL), McCain (AZ) and Murkowski (AK). That leaves 39 Republicans who could be UN haters, but I think not. Senators Hatch (UT), Corker (ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, from TN) and Alexander (TN) have gone on the record as opposing ratification of the CRPD PERIOD. They may or may not have raised the UN in their objections. If they did, it was probably in connection to their fear of the CRPD's impact on sovereignty -- our system of government as spelled out in the Constitution. These three -- Hatch, Corker, Alexander -- we need to scratch off as lost to us.
Others, Republican Senators on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Flake, and Paul -- have raised substantive objections about the CRPD doing such things as expanding abortion rights or weakening sovereignty, but they have not said they flat out oppose UN treaties. Other Senators like Cruz (has sovereignty concerns) and Lee (has concerns about challenges to parents' rights, among other issues) have not done a full assault on the UN. So that is eight Senators who have substantive objections that they have expressed in hearings or the media. These eight represent people to talk to and ask -- what would it take to eliminate their opposition to the CRPD? We need to know.
That leaves 26 Republicans who may or may not have a "no-way" attitude toward a UN treaty. We need a poll of this 26 Senators too.
Here's what I think we will learn. Some of these Senators would like to draft language to address their concerns and be recognized for it. Some would say they will decide once they see the language in a draft resolution on the CRPD. And, maybe one or two Senators will actually say they would not support anything coming from the UN. What this tells me is that there are at least 34 Republicans who would be willing to help draft a CRPD resolution or read it and then decide, IF THEY WERE APPROACHED by Senators who support the CRPD.
There are 53 Democrats and two Independents who support the CRPD. So, with 61 Senators (53 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and 2 Independents) whom we know will vote for the CRPD, we need six more. If the 34 Republicans I mentioned are approached in good faith, I am sure we will find more than six to support ratification. But, FIRST, they need to be asked to help and then be given the time to read a draft.
We can do this.
Thank you.
Common Grounder
The thing he said that stood out was -- Senators, who do not want the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) to be ratified, do not like the United Nations. We do not know what that number actually is. There are 45 Republicans in the Senate. Of those, six Republicans are on the record as supporting ratification of the CRPD -- Ayotte (NH), Barrasso (WY), Collins (ME), Kirk (IL), McCain (AZ) and Murkowski (AK). That leaves 39 Republicans who could be UN haters, but I think not. Senators Hatch (UT), Corker (ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, from TN) and Alexander (TN) have gone on the record as opposing ratification of the CRPD PERIOD. They may or may not have raised the UN in their objections. If they did, it was probably in connection to their fear of the CRPD's impact on sovereignty -- our system of government as spelled out in the Constitution. These three -- Hatch, Corker, Alexander -- we need to scratch off as lost to us.
Others, Republican Senators on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Flake, and Paul -- have raised substantive objections about the CRPD doing such things as expanding abortion rights or weakening sovereignty, but they have not said they flat out oppose UN treaties. Other Senators like Cruz (has sovereignty concerns) and Lee (has concerns about challenges to parents' rights, among other issues) have not done a full assault on the UN. So that is eight Senators who have substantive objections that they have expressed in hearings or the media. These eight represent people to talk to and ask -- what would it take to eliminate their opposition to the CRPD? We need to know.
That leaves 26 Republicans who may or may not have a "no-way" attitude toward a UN treaty. We need a poll of this 26 Senators too.
Here's what I think we will learn. Some of these Senators would like to draft language to address their concerns and be recognized for it. Some would say they will decide once they see the language in a draft resolution on the CRPD. And, maybe one or two Senators will actually say they would not support anything coming from the UN. What this tells me is that there are at least 34 Republicans who would be willing to help draft a CRPD resolution or read it and then decide, IF THEY WERE APPROACHED by Senators who support the CRPD.
There are 53 Democrats and two Independents who support the CRPD. So, with 61 Senators (53 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and 2 Independents) whom we know will vote for the CRPD, we need six more. If the 34 Republicans I mentioned are approached in good faith, I am sure we will find more than six to support ratification. But, FIRST, they need to be asked to help and then be given the time to read a draft.
We can do this.
Thank you.
Common Grounder
Sunday, March 23, 2014
NEED 67 VOTES TO RATIFY THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (CRPD)
RESULTS OF THE DEC 4, 2012 SENATE VOTE ON THE CRPD
AND
INDICATION OF SEATS CHANGED IN NOV 2012 ELECTION
YEAs—61
Akaka (D-HI)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso
(R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM), retired Heinrich (D)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA), defeated by Warren (D)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND), retired; replaced by Heitkamp (D)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
|
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA), replaced by Markey (D)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI), retired; replaced by Baldwin (D)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ), died; replaced by Booker (D)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT), retired; replaced by Murphy (D)
Lugar (R-IN), retired; replaced by Donnelly (D)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain
(R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
|
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE), retired; replaced by Fischer (R)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME), retired; replaced by King (I)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA), retired; replaced by Kaine (D)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
|
NAYs —38
|
||
Alexander (R-TN)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC), retired; replaced by Scott (R)
Enzi (R-WY)
|
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX), retired; replaced by Cruz (R)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ), retired; replaced by Flake (R)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)
|
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
|
Not
voting: Kirk
(R-IL)
Need
a simple majority to vote CRPD out of Senate Foreign Relations Committee
(SFRC).
Current members
of Senate Foreign Relations Committee are in bold.
Highlighted in yellow are Republicans who currently support CRPD.
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Timeline on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
If my research is accurate, 193 countries belong to the United Nations (U.N.). Of that number, 143 have ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (CRPD). The U.S. has not.
Being among the countries that agree to implement laws
consistent with CRPD principles is a two-step process. First a country must
sign the CRPD. Then the country’s legislature (like our Congress, but in this case only the Senate has responsibility for ratifications) must ratify
it. As I said, the U.S. has not ratified the CRPD.
To emphasize that startling fact – we are in there with the
last 23 percent – countries like Libya, Sri Lanka, Chad, Bhutan – that have not
ratified. Here are some more facts. There are 128 members of the European Union
(as of July 2013). Of these, at least 124 have ratified the CRPD. Britain,
Canada, Australia, and New Zealand also have ratified the CRPD. What is the U.S.
afraid of? Clearly the European Union countries, as well as English-speaking
countries, are as legally sophisticated and concerned about sovereignty,
separation of powers, abortion, and parental rights as we are. And yet, they
found a way to ratify the CRPD. We have had plenty of time to think about these
issues, to research how others have addressed these issues, and to compile
and weigh solid legal options.
Just look at the timeline:
Dec. 13, 2006 U.N.
General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons
with
Disabilities.
Jul. 30, 2009 U.S.
signed the CRPD.
May 17, 2012 President
transmitted CRPD to the Senate for its advisement and
consent.
Jul. 11, 2012 Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) held the first hearing on
CRPD
(112th Congress).
Jul. 26, 2012 SFRC,
on a vote 13-6, passed the CRPD out of committee.
Dec. 4, 2012 CRPD
failed to pass during a full Senate vote (61-38, needed 67) (112th
Congress).
Nov. 5, 2013 Senate Foreign Relations Committee held the first hearing on the
CRPD in the 113th Congress.
Nov. 21, 2013 Senate Foreign Relations Committee held the second hearing on
the CRPD in the 113th Congress.
It is now March 22, 2014. Primaries are looming. Relations with Russia are
deteriorating. No one can honestly say that a window of opportunity for
ratification of the CRPD will open up later in 2014.
I don’t think we need more time. We need a reason to act.
There are enough votes to get the CRPD voted out of committee. If we see a move
like THAT there are plenty of us ready to reach out TO EACH SENATOR, with passion, conviction,
and compelling, tailored arguments for the CRPD. Really, people
with disabilities, a ton of veterans, and others are poised. Please, SFRC give us a
reason to move out and make the final push for ratification of the CRPD!
Thank you.
Common Grounder
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)