was also the political thing. the outgoing president which was a great moment on george bush's part to defy his own party to some extent but it didn't occur to us to think these poor people. i also believe this was not stimulated by the politicians. this is genuine public anger. >> and appointed fairness the house republicans leadership step up and john boehner, eric cantor, paul ryan. >> they replace their negotiator >> they had no negotiator. >> yes they did. >> they still had a majority voting against them. >> understand but let's give credit where it is due. >> in my experience when the house leadership republican house leadership cares they do

better than the minority of their own party. >> i have serious reservations about that characterization. i think a lot of people went to the floor on that monday and voted no because they thought the leadership have the votes to pass the bill. they couldn't gather -- gavel back in. i think that was true of both sides. >> not so much on your side. nobody ever casts political votes on your side. >> on this one judd wait a second. it's about politicians and politics and i know that may upset some people because we are only supposed to these talking about finances. you are two months before an election. this is a freebie on the incumbent party. it's a free shot on goal without a goalie in the goal box in the democratic party is in the

majority voted. it was not unpopular after-the-fact. it was unpopular when it was implemented. it was unpopular. you can't put lipstick on that. the majority of our party voted for something of the incumbent president of the other party that would help solve a problem in the majority of the republican congress voted against it even with their own president and party. that's a very political vote two months before an election and if you don't understand -- >> i am just stunned that you are not a more forgiving person. >> i am on a one-on-one basis. >> i was locked in a room with you for 48 hours. >> tell us about what happens in bipartisanship at midnight. take us into a room. you had your own fieldhouse colleagues were you know full well they are not at them.

forget the leadership. they were not leading members to a yes vote to defend the economy. you had your own views than for you realize they were not holding up their side of the bargain even if some of them like right loans wanted to. >> i had plausible deniability on that issue. [laughter] >> okay. >> senator just because i know the story and it's in hank's book that may be conveyed to look for a second. you are in the room and it's close to midnight. i think you might be there too and i think barney is there. >> i would like to deniability now. [laughter] >> this was at the crux. this was the moment. this whole thing was either going or not going. this man mr. paulsen was actually throwing up he was so anxious about what's happening. >> well, he was concerned and rahm and i were with hank in the anti-room. rahm and i went in with barney

and the last issue as restitution. the secretary and i made a proposal -- the secretary made a proposal. at about 3:00 in the afternoon we had been going back and forth and he was very active on this. finally about 12 buckley could reach an agreement and we were throwing up our hands. it was three of us in the room and i remember rahm specifically saying you and rahm went in to see the speaker. i don't think the story has been told. i thought it was over and i thought we had lost it. we all knew we had to have the deal that night because the asian markets were opening the next day. 10 minutes later the speaker came out and said we are going your way. it's over, it's done. i don't think the speaker forgot credit for that. believe me if she had not done that there would have been no deal and she has never gotten that credit. >> let me go back.

there is a fundamental difference and that is i think not partisan. i want to stress this again. the difference between the two parties there has been a movement in the republican party from the mainstream conservatism of you and bob dole and both presidents bush to a group that does not accept the notion that the public set there must play a significant role. our parties at their best we know there should be a public sector and private sector and we fight about where to draw the line. >> that is not the majority of our party. >> it is part of the party that has intimidated the rest of the party in the house. i agree with that but i think it's the perception of many house republicans. that is where the primary voters would turn out. you just saw that happening. >> you also saw the speaker take it to the floor. >> after a great deal of crisis.

the gun was at his head. you brought it up. >> i don't want to get into a tangent. >> it's not a tangent. this is not a small thing. i think if it's a serious thing going forward. a group in the house who do not accept the legitimacy of the function of the government have the degree confluence that they have and i think that was a factor. as far as nancy pelosi is concerned her corporation started earlier. in 2008 in january george bush came to us and said we need an economic stimulus because the economy is in trouble. if the partisan response would have been the congress is in trouble, let it go. policing -- pelosi not only agreed that the republicans won't support spending. i'm going to say yes but it will be the most progressive tax cuts we can with earned income tax

credits etc.. a fundamental difference between the two parties today given the influence of the tea party on the sense of how much do you sacrifice of your own view to keep the government going? within the republican party and the house today there's a scary ammunition of that commitment. >> at the risk of not making my flight you are solving the presence role in building bridges to the congress. there is a lot that has changed since i wait. >> george bush and i were not pals. i never had a serious conversation with george bush but when he sent paulsen and bernanke up to tell us that things were collapsing we responded and it wasn't based on any schmoozing of george bush. >> i have two more questions than i want to open up to the audience. i'm going to go to you barney on this. >> you already went to barney. barney borrowed some of my time.

>> he is my former chairman. >> jpmorgan is in the midst of this $13 billion settlement in part related to assets that it acquired during the finance of crisis both bear stearns and washington mutual. you said publicly and i'm curious if your view has changed since we last talked given the details that have emerged. about whether you think the government should be finding the company -- not for buying those assets at whatever to those assets that were purchased during the crisis with a little bit of a push if not a lot of push from mr. paulsen? >> i would say this. first of all to my recollection the washington mutual ambassadors were not the same. they were much more voluntary activity on the part of jpmorgan and washington mutual. and similarly the bank of

america. tank of america was pushed into taking merrill lynch. buying countrywicountrywi de was one of the worst ideas that handle lever had. with regard to wamu, no. that's totally there. with regard to bear stearns and think it would be not just unfair but that public policy to find them for having acquiesced to serious pressure over the federal financial people to take over bear stearns. leave aside the equity. i can't rule out that sometime in the future there will be a request by had other federal financial officials to step in and they would be much less likely to be cooperative. you could say there were people who have been made whole because of the things that bear stearns did but as far as finding them in analyzing them because of what they are stearns did before

they were pressured i think is a mistake. >> mr. mayor? >> the next time the treasury secretary calls a bank during a time of crisis do they hang up on them? >> i don't know what they do. i can't speak to that but i want to emphasize on what barney just said. it's an important point. we are at a place that jpmorgan had to get bear stearns because he would have had the moment earlier. now that there has jpmorgan thing initiated something we solicited them to do and now wee are holding them responsible for what we asked them to do at that time. you're basically -- the government is given a

position to look back and rewrite the rules of what contextually happened. actually they didn't come forward with the idea eyeing bear stearns until then. we brought it to them and asked them to do it and now we are saying they are legally culpable for it. that's double jeopardy. >> final question. if each of you individually could have done one thing different during the crisis, either before, after or during, i don't care individually in your own what would it have been? we will start with you. >> i have thought about this a lot. i think the communications was the hardest thing we struggle with because the way i described it we had one microphone but we had two different audiences. we wanted to project confidence to the markets that we wanted to let the congress not terrified we really were. honestly to catalyze every move that if we looked at the markets

they would have been destabilizing. i don't have a good answer for how to solve that. maybe that would have made the political process a little bit easier. >> haven't really thought about it. i don't know if this would have worked but maybe forcing the house members to put somebody in the room with us so they would have had ownership of the final product. it may have changed the context of the vote. this would have been popular and publicly accepted. they don't like bailing out people for the decisions they made. >> i have to be honest. it was a team effort and i was generally, i don't think there has been a time in my experience in government. when i was a governor we have extraordinarily difficult time.

i don't think i ever saw period when people work so conscientiously together on both sides. i think it was one of the most impressively positive points in american history. >> we actually have a friendship out of it. >> we do. we were locked in a room for a long time. >> i agree with judd and i want to make an important point. people are claiming vice -- bipartisanship has broken down but it's not systemic. we are talking about 1920, fighters ago in difficult times. our structural government worked very well. i think the problems have been political. what i would done and here's one point i want to make. one of the things people do understand are the limitations being the legislature. you cannot leave from the legislature. it's partly political. to give you a football analogy, the best blocker in the world who protects his quarterback is

not going to get the attention of the guide who leads in sacks. if you're in the legislature there's an incentive to be on the attack because you can be supportive and the -- gets credit. i regret not having fought harder for more mortgage relief in the beginning. not so much to make it politically acceptable but i do believe it became an economic drag on the economy. you have two choices at some point in the legislatilegislati ve branch. you say yes or no. you can't say yes and only guests and my conviction was that i pushed as hard as i could but i couldn't pull the trigger and saying no so that's my answer. >> thank you barney and thank you to the panel. >> can i say one thing? this is an historic moment. barney used a sports metaphor. i don't think i've ever heard that from him before. [laughter] >> you were going to open up to the audience.

the man with a bowtie here in the front. the same rules apply. please standards that your line -- state your name and your statement should end with a question mark. >> i was wondering i know while there are voting members of congress and senators, not all of them are experts in economics and i was wondering what sort of impact that has on any sort of discussion concerning the economy as a whole and how much that hinders effective policy? >> the other panel was alluding to this. i don't think most people in congress knew that this was coming. i generally don't think in my caucus in the senate that anyone was taking this. it was sort of we are doing business as business works and people suddenly woke up and it was on top of them. it was a fascinating story. some of us who have been

involved have been talking a little bit about it but nobody saw it coming. >> the reason was to some extent you couldn't alert people that was coming without bringing it on further. you were in that salama we couldn't talk about it up to answer the question directly the way congress usually works is there is deference to experts. there are always a small number of experts on each issue and basically it's how you get there. you figure out who were the people whose judgment you trust whose values are generally your values in terms of goals and then you follow them on the issues where they are experts. that is often the case economically as well. the situation here was this transcended everything but that's generally what happens. on each side there are people who have expertise and they basically called the shots and the other members tended to follow. >> mr. mayor? >> to quit points.

the house instead of the specialist based on your committee assignments and the representatives are journalists. they don't have the same type of distinction and i think to echo a barney just said there's going to be a few people that colleagues will turn to for their judgment and background. i will just say also this. there were not a lot of people even outside congress that had experience with the major financial meltdown. the most recent experience as a country was a sector called the savings and loan industry. not mutual funds, tanks, investment banks, the entire financial system of insurance companies. the idea of congress the expertise we don't even have an in the country. it didn't exist. let's be honest guys. we were making it up as we were going by the seat of our pants and that was true for us in congress, the administrative as well as experts outside who are commenting. for all of that we did really

well. >> there is a question right there, sir. >> carl tannenbaum achieved economists at the northern trust. the early editions of tarp for relatively short on specifics if memory serves. it was a relatively brief document with a large number. i have a question. first politically as approval was contemplated was this lack of detail. one of the reasons why getting to the consensus was difficult and one of the piffle the moments i think is we think back on tarp is it was intended to purchase had assets and find investors and it pivoted to being a recapitalrecapitalization tool. at what point was that decision made? >> both points. first of all that was never intended to be a full bill. that was a description of the authorities we needed to be sent to the congress and said you are

the authority we need so let's crafted bill. obviously the interpretation of that especially in the press was this was the full bill and it was never intended to be the full bill. congress moved at lightning speed to ultimately when we got it but in those two weeks markets cratered and they literally went in there and tending to buy the assets but as the markets collapsed beneath us we have to move much faster and that is why we made the change. to our credit into congress is credit we designed the authority to be broad enough that we could make those kinds of decisions that we have to. >> there was consensus there. in the meeting he was the senior republican leader at the time. he was one of the first in her meeting to read raise the notion of how about a capital infusion?

there is a consensus. let's give the secretary the authority to do whichever either/or both or some mix. that did come out of that move. there was a necessity to do something about compensation. jack reid in the senate talked about the need for some kind of repayment. there was general agreement. the compensation became a little bit controversial but the notion of going from buying the assets to capital infusions grew out of the computation and there was general remit. we don't know what the hell is going to happen unless give them the authority. there was no criticism that i recall. when was the decision made? after the bill had been passed. >> shifted gears from a three-page document to very long document is when the decision was made. it was a big mistake but that is the way folks wanted to go forward. we spent as of thursday trying

to clean up the senate bill. as to the flexibility as i recall the only thing secretary paulsen asked of our side in the negotiation was two things. he wanted a lot of money and he wanted total flexibility. those were the standards we were told to fight war. >> we are going to squeeze in a couple of more questions. >> my name is ari and i'm a second year college student majoring in political science. in the past when there have been historical problems and solutions that have come across that it cannot dated into ideology. it works for ronald reagan in the wool work now. how do you reconcile these competing ideologies into making a plan that is loath current and can help reserve the current crisis and passed to the government? >> i'm glad to give that question. i'm troubled right now that we are not doing that.

i am about to submit a comment dealing with residential mortgages very much opposing what appears to be the major proposal. we talked about this before. they are in the process it looks like other favorite proposal is one that would effectively do away with risk protection home mortgages and 100% securitization. we set up three categories of mortgages. the great majority would keep 5% of the mix and superduper ones that are sure to be paid. i am surprised at how quickly people have in my judgment forgotten one of the major causes. so much hope that they are going to change it. the answer is there is no cure guidance. there's a lot of political pressure there. by the way advocacy groups.

there was a "wall street journal" article that attacked me for cutting back on -- loans. that sentiment i'm afraid is recurring. my answer is we haven't found a way to do that effectively. >> ken monahan. neel mentioned at the beginning that democracy is good at fixing problems when not good at having them off in the preceding panel talk about the issues of government involvement in an industry that are ongoing. can you think of broadly, how should the government go about trying to address the things that it knows are on the horizon now and having just learned from not failing to head off this? is it possible? >> my view is that human civilizations are prone to -- it's funny but it's not funny. i bought a house in california

in 2005. i didn't see the housing bubble coming and it alan greenspan then president of the federal reserve i'm going to clamp down on mortgage lending the members of the panel would have been outraged that their members were kept from participating in the american dream. it's very hard for one person to see something when nobody else sees it. unfortunately we have to do our very best that human history, as a society we are prone to dilution and unfortunately it's probably going to happen again. >> let me say, take two events. in 1983 there was three months left for the social security trust fund to be able to pay. it took a three-month window and forced it into decisions that ronald reagan and tip o'neill had made it work out.

judd said something that was throughout one level. i don't think our congress regardless of who got flamed for who voted with more time would have been more thoughtful and you needed that crisis moment to move. take a look at infrastructure basic research or immigration. maybe there's a consensus there and maybe there is in. all of those are in our own economic self-interest immediately and long-term. how are we doing it resolving them? you need a kind of a moment to crystallize and in force and action that you can see in front of you but you can't do. that is unfortunately is how the political system works. on the other hand and this does get to what arnie did say and while i choked a little bit it is serious. you were not the leadership in a legislative ranch. they are good at growing boats. leadership comes out of the executive branch. it provides a roadmap and sets olds and the legislature runs

and most people towards the barn door. that is how the process works in creating that moment is part of what leadership can do to actually come up with solutions a little ahead of schedule. >> by the way in defense of democracy i don't see nondemocracy doing all that much better. i wouldn't blame democracy. >> we are almost out of time. >> really quickly i just wondered neel you make a point about needing to invoke confidence in the financial markets. is maybe that lack of messaging that did not happen then part of the problem today in terms of what it's costing our economy today? >> i think the situation is we are not and we talked about this earlier -- the crises we are facing now are self-inflicted

created by the political dysfunction. i think the situation is fundamentally different today but i share judd's optimism. if there were a real crisis we would see people come together and see congress asked in a much more rational manner. >> the final final bastion right up here. >> stuart lucas. how do we create the political circumstances to reset redistricting to at the point you guys were raising earlier? >> mr. mayor? >> look at california and arizona and iowa. if you think i announced this is right about what the problem is, that's the first question. i happen to think it and then what you have to do is where it has succeeded california sncc sample and arizona is an example and iowa you can ring the competition back. >> referendum. >> you have to take state legislators out and put in a

court/nonpartisan analysis and that is what i would do. >> before we go because i see you have your paper there. i'm going to t. this a are you. you want me to tee it up. you just want to go? >> you can tee it up. >> is this going to the floor? bia can go to the floor but i can't talk so the hell with that. [laughter] >> you are about to release a paper. >> i'm submitting an official comment on the pending regulation before the five agencies charging the statute dealing with the question of risk retention in residential mortgages. >> that's going on today? >> the deadline is tomorrow. >> do you want to tell everybody briefly what it is? >> in the legislation in the first place we band the bad mortgages for which by the way it was attacked by "the wall street journal." november 6, 2007 they said i was keeping for able from buying

houses because sub-prime loans were fine. they said those whom she could now. >> that was paraphrased? [laughter] >> you can read it. >> he has got copies for everybody. >> secondly we set the great oak of mortgages were qualified mortgages. for those mortgages you would be able to securitize them but we ask for risk protection. 5% of the risk would have to be retained by the securitize her which would incentivize them not to buy junk. then frankly because of a couple of senators, democrats, who were listening to people in the mortgage industry with put in a section called the qualified residential mortgage. it's confusing qm and qrm and those were supposed to be a superduper safe category for which you could securitize risk protection. to my dismay the major proposal

of the five regulators is to condense and combined the two and you have only one set of mortgages, one that you can make and one that you can't make without risk retention. this has been the single biggest cause of the problem. ..

budget cuts on the military. and later, the privacy and civil liberties oversight board examines in s a surveillance programs. of the next washington journal, discussing the oil industry. a population of less than 8,000, considered by some to be the capital of the american oil kingdom. bought and sold daily on the new york mercantile exchange and the proposed keystone oil pipeline is directly through pushing. a capacity of more than 80 million barrels. how all of those barrels of oil

a transported and stored. >> i am concerned. and and and countersign just the agreement.

member has done this and then realize it is a nation that no other nation can stretch. him so india, one thing the happy with security. pakistan has nuclear weapons, now pakistan needs ted drake of 48% who don't go to school and make sure that they do not continue to drive a base that is much faster than economic growth and none of these things can be addressed just by building relations between an american military personality and pakistan. >> the former pakistani ambassador to the u.s. on the

painful history of pakistan-american relations sunday night at 9:00. just part of book tv this weekend on c-span2. >> today we faced a danger that our current budget crisis and the steep, abrupt, and deep cuts impressed by sequestration will cause an unnecessary strategically unsound and dangerous degradation in military readiness and capability. as you all know, the department is currently facing sequestered-level cuts on the order of $500 billion over ten years. this is in addition to, in addition to that ten year --

10-year $4,807,000,000,000 deduction in that department of defense budget that is already in of late. these cuts are too fast, too much, too abrupt, into irresponsible. department of defense ticket $37 billion sequester cut during the past fiscal year, and we could be forced to absorbent $52 billion sequester cuts this fiscal year. really get nearly $1 trillion department of defense cuts over this time frame unless there is a new budget. demand we are currently operating under no budget, operating under a continuing resolution which continues to present dod with one of its most difficult challenges, uncertainty. dod cannot responsibly, efficiently, and effectively plan, strategy as demand implement national security policies with this cloud of uncertainty continuing to hangover. it forces us into a very bad set

of decisions. >> in 2009 that disabilities treaty allowed that, if ratified , would extend the disability rights americans enjoy to people in other countries. in 2012 ramification in the senate failed by five votes. wednesday they took up consideration. disabled greta van eric -- representative and homeland security secretary in the civil rights advocates testified. this is two hours and 40 minutes. >> this hearing of the senate foreign collations committee will come to order. let me welcome our panelists they come for this important hearing on the rights of roughly 1 billion people around the world. let me quickly welcome three guests, among them congressman

tony cuomo who has been a longtime champion of the rights of the disabled. i appreciate in joining as. let me also recognize a multiple peril a big medalist representing the u.s. on three pairs of the james also nominated to be the vice-president the international pearland the committee. you need to make surrounding breast runs and businesses and accessible. i'll also want to have recognized a leader in that committee in macedonia in the united states the lead of that transportation in independent living systems and having public as fictitious standards which allows for of work and live independently here in the united states and with that of american she helps to make that a reality of, as well, so we thank you for

your work and welcome you here. i hope that will we do he will help you in your efforts. and it makes clear what we are here to do. ratifying this treaty will help the united states the in the effort to give every disabled person the opportunity to live, work, learn, and travel without undue parings. five and a half million american veterans, your men and women who risk their lives to fight for us now it is our turn to fight for them, to have full access and equal opportunity wherever they go. 138 countries have already ratified the treaty. it will take u.s. ratification and u.s. leaders to ensure the trees protections that only become a reality of reflect american values. they borrow principles of

equality in the protection of minorities. the treaty barrault's the concept of reasonable accommodation. we will be ratifying adoption of american values around the world. we have heard from the state department they have canvasback we have asked why american consultants should be consulted with. american business, the great accessibility innovators have expressed the fear there may standing an inability rest in the markets for a sensible goods might not expand as quickly as they otherwise would.

in the future, our businesses might very well have less success advocating for u.s. accessibility standards creating the possibility that the world without standards incompatible with american standards that have proven so effective. i ask my colleagues to look past the fear mongering surviving gay son in this debate ratifying the treaty will not mean bureaucrats in europe will determine how many parking spots are in your church is parking lot. see clearly that this treaty is about putting american in a position to help lead the world.

everyone has the opportunity to achieve there dreams and to fill their god-given talents. let me introduce senator corker, ranking member for his opening and remarks and then we will move toward the first panel. >> thanks you, and i appreciate you having this hearing so that members can more fully understand. one of the most moving moments in time was to have two senators we had a vote. i do think it was not considered in fullness.

we're taking a little more methodical approach to that. as his and i want to say to the advocates, it is tremendous to see everything is under way to move people along in this regard some unintended consequences. the effect that a treaty like this could have. i want to make sure that we pass the treaty and have the relevant run. i want to mention to those that are here.

when it's repasses there is something called ride on the front end. the things that we actually act upon to give a treaty its life here in the u.s. just today there is is to print cards that is taking place. a lady in pennsylvania who unbelievably is convicted of a lot of the chemical weapons treaty that we put in place back in 1997. sometimes when people raised concerns they're actually legitimate if. if they try to work with those of us to understand the rights of people who are disabled around the world.

i'm neutral. i proclaim right now i do not have a position on this street. i appreciate the energy that has been fourth. at the same time, i want to make sure that we as a committee and hopefully as a senate did it right. making sure this of those in the -- and intended consequences don't come to bear again. the supreme court we're literally a tree under chemical weapons treaty, by the way, that did not work for a side but is not working in pennsylvania. i think you for these hearings, look forward to a very vigorous debate, especially to my good friend kelly ayotte testimony

and working with all to come out with a good outcome here. >> thank you, senator cochran. we to look forward to an honest and open an intellectually honest debate. we stand ready i look forward to that opportunity to achieve that goal. our first panel is to of our -- well, going to be two of our colleagues and presently one of our colleagues to this year, senator kelly a god who has been a champion of the treaty, advocate for it as well as working with us to try to achieve a gel. now she is here in her own right as well as in speaking on behalf

of senator bob dole who is a great champion of the treaty. and as i recognize you, let me also think congressman bartlett who i understand is here with us from the house. thank you very much. appreciate your being here with us. with that, our distinguished colleague, this senator kelly ayotte. >> thank-you very much, chairman, ranking member, hon. members of the committee. i am deeply humbled to be here today, first of all. my primary permits to the purpose in being here today is to read this statement of senator robert dole, someone who was an extraordinary leader in the united states senate. he is someone who was a role model in terms of what it means to be a public service, and we all appreciate that he is inter-american hero with the service that he gave to our country. i am deeply honored to be here.

personally support what this committee is doing, the convention and the rights for persons with disabilities i think is very, very important for us to work together to get this passed. and so i look forward to working with the chairman and other members of the committee to do that and to address any concerns that members of the committee may have to read my primary purpose of being here today is to read this statement of senator robert dole, and so i will do that now. chairman menendez, ranking member corker, and members of this committee, i urge you to give your support and consent to the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. while i cannot stand before you in person today to my approach you and the strong growth that on your second examination of this important treaty you well, again to what do the right thing and it bans the rights of disabled individuals in so doing

andrew was a dry whatever 20 veterans' organizations. forty religious groups, more than 700 disability in allied troops. doesn't your both sides of this and i'll and many other prominent americans who recognize the imperative of the notice says leaders on this issue that will be imperiled without the united states ratification of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities when this tree came before the senate it fell five votes short of passage. in debating the merits, opponents expressed concern that this see our pd would diminish american sovereignty.

through u.s. ratification the united nations would somehow be able to supersede u.s. law, even by interfering with the american parents right to all school their children. along with senator john mccain, secretary john kerry, and others , it could not disagree more strongly with this view. this tree contains reservations understandings, and declarations otherwise known as runs that explicitly describe how the treaty will and will not apply to the united states. at the same time, i respect the institution, its provisions for debate and its tolerance of the opinions and conclusions of its 100 members. today i urge all of you to keep an open mind and recognize another important characteristic

of this a gust body. the opportunity it presents policies to revolve and be strengthened as members work together in a bipartisan fashion for greater good. this treaty in a way that is both telling and unique injuries the support of diverse groups serving a variety of interest. republicans and democrats, veterans organizations and disability groups, businesses and religious organizations given the broad support i hope those of you with reservations about any aspect of the treaty will work with your colleagues in wino are ready to work with you to address your concerns. if improvements are needed, i urge members from both parties to work together on that.

this treaty is important for america because of who we are as a nation. it is particularly important, though, for a distinguished group of which i am a member. as i recall that my statement to this committee last year, i left world war two having joined an exceptional group, one which no one joins by personal choice. aggregate data respects are discredits by h., gender, wealth, education, skin color, religious beliefs, political party, power, or prestige. therefore, the importance of maintaining access for people -- excuse me, that group, americans with disabilities has grown in size ever since.

therefore it has been importance of maintaining access for people with disabilities to be part of mainstream american life with your access to a job, education, are registering to vote. to me this is not about extending the privilege to a special category of people. is, instead, but civil-rights. when congress passed the americans with disability act in 1990 it was not only one of the proudest moments of my career, it was a remarkable by parses that may impact on millions of americans. this simple goal was to foster independence and dignity and it's reasonable accommodations which enabled americans with disabilities to contribute more readily to this great country. if not before the ada, then

certainly after its passage our nation led the world in developing this ability public policy in the quality. in recent years many countries, including our allies in australia, britain, canada, france, germany, israel, mexico, and south korea have followed our lead. into does a six president george w. bush took u.s. on this issue to a new level by initiating and supporting approval of the crpd. on the anniversary of the 88 in 2009, president barack obama signed the treaty, a landmark document that commits countries around the world to a firm -- to affirm what are essentially core american values of equality,

justice, and dignity. u.s. ratification of this crp de will increase the ability of the united states to improve physical, technological, and communication access in other countries, thereby helping to ensure that americans, particularly many thousands of disabled american veterans have equal opportunities to live, work, and travel abroad in fact, it will create and new global market for accessibility of goods. in active u.s. presence and implementation of global disability rights will promote the market for devices such as wheelchairs', smart phones, and other new technologies, and engineered, made command sold by the united states corporations.

with the traditional reservations understandings and declarations that the senate has adopted in the past, current u.s. law satisfies the requirements of the crp. indeed as president george h. w. bush informed this committee last year the treaty would not require in the changes to u.s. law disabilities throughout the world. president obama has submitted the treaty you for your vice and consent. i urge you to seize this critical opportunity to continue the proud american tradition of supporting their rights and inclusion of people with disabilities. years ago in dedicating the

national war two will morial i tried to capture what makes america worth fighting for. indeed dying for this is the golden thread that runs throughout the tapestry of our nationhood. the dignity of every life, the possibility of never mind. i know many of you share the sentiment and hope he will consider this treaty through that lens. in ratifying this treaty we can affirm these goals for americans with civilities. i urge you to support the united states ratification of this important treaty, and that thank you for the courtesy of your consideration. cabalists america. >> thank you, senator kelly ayotte for your own advocacy as

well as our thanks to the center for raise longstanding advocacy in this regard. we appreciate you coming before the committee to express your sentiments. >> thank-you, chairman. i am deeply honored to be here as well. >> which we will turn to next. welcome to the committee, friend to my colleague. i know that senator durbin wanted to be recognized to welcome his colleague as well as -- >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. we will be brief. in the history of the united states senate, congress, the year 2013 there are high points and loma to cut low points one of the highest was january 3rd of this year because of january 3rd with our colleague returned to the united states senate determined to climb those

45 steps into the senate he had endured a life-threatening stroke, three brain surgeries cunners of hours of rehabilitation, but he was coming back his job in washington. for all the negative and partisan things that are said, if someone could have witnessed that scene of the steps and watched your colleagues stand in the plot of political parties, it was a worthy affirmation connally of what the senate should be about to let a tribute to you, your determination and courage. that was honored to come up the stairs with you. thank you very much. >> if you would just turn your microphone of, i would like to also, speaking for while it,

fell a broken people how important this issue. a lot to introduce you to a constituent of mine. he is a veteran and lost his sight in battle in that country. i want you to think about him. we have a problem in thinking about veterans. we see them all the time. we have a lot in the walter reed. in that room we are working on it all the time. about 20 arms missing.

the get hold of them back. this convention allows people to go and become victors in said that victims. >> thank you, senator. we appreciate you being here with us and your advocacy as well. >> i will point out the explicitly foreign projectile. [laughter] >> no more passionate proponent of trying to stop the iranian nuclear weapons as well as the acts of terrorism. thank you for that as well. and they both have busy schedules without they said the committee we will excuse you both. that nicolle of our second panel. we have a large panel here.

as the witnesses to limit their presentations to five minutes so that the committee can engage in a question and answer session. the false statements of each and every one of our panelists that were submitted to the committee will be entered into the record in full without objection. first, we have foreign secretary of homeland security and current chairman of the national organization on disability to discuss his support for the treaty. i know that the secretary chase is scheduled to be with us today the keynote speaker in a disabilities related event this evening in new york. we will be a season him around for 30 years of to do so. thank you for rearranging your schedule to be here today. i will leave the congresswoman to be recognized by senator durbin, someone who has done a

tremendous amount of work at the department of veterans affairs and whose personal testimony about her personal experience as a wounded warrior is invaluable to the committee. want to ask former attorney general here to discuss the practical importance of ratification. let me also recognize his wife jenny who hit as been accomplished in their own right. and dr. michael ferris to join us as well as they offer their views. >> thank you. let me turn to senator durbin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. honored that two of the witnesses are from illinois in especially honored in addition

to saying a word about our colleague, to say a word about tammy duck worth because it is interesting how we came to me. i invited her to be my guest of the city the union address 2005. that did not realize it was only a matter ten weeks after she had been shut down serving in the illinois and army national guard. copilot in black hawk helicopter in baghdad, lost both legs and they're is a question of one of her arms, but she came with a smile on her face in full dress uniform with her husband pushing the wheelchair. that is when we came to meet. an incredible story. the most amazing part to me is that in just a week from now it will be in observance of her ninth anniversary of her alive taken our survival from that helicopter incident and the crash that followed.

she has been such an amazing and inspiring person. she celebrates her first anniversary, has worked so hard and for so many people and so many veterans. and water to carry as a friend in glad that she can join us today. >> they key very much. thank you for joining us. we ask you to leverage your marks to five minutes. your full statement will be included in the record. >> we will start with congresswoman duck worth. i never argue with the secretary. >> me either. >> with this testimony. >> thank you. thank you so much for the

aborigines to speak today in support of a convention of the rights of persons with disabilities. i believe ramification, we set the gold standard combat the commitment to disabled veterans. we have what should be the gold standard in disability access, yet our legitimacy is weekend this number will continue to grow republicans and democrats standing up together. unfortunately our laws do not

follow service members and veterans i travel to asia earlier this year. i saw firsthand have counters are moving toward economically and not keeping pace with the necessary protections for disabled persons. disabilities' groups that i met with tell me about the challenges they face in trying to make public buses wheelchair accessible. a sad fact that in many countries around the world is similar hidden, and embarrassment, and not afforded accommodation is needed to lead productive lives. is not surprising that when they travel abroad we can find ourselves mistreated simply because we're physically disabled blinded veterans have

had their flex six being taken away. as one veteran put it, climbing the mountains is that the challenge, getting there is. many are returning to active duty service and should not be limited by disability we want to travel, work alliance of a broad . if we do not start thinking globally about the accessibility and have the u.s. can have an impact on this issue. the generous benefits provided that many of this very committee supported have given almost a million veterans the up to the lead to further their education. many are disabled and will be unable to an education the study

abroad opportunities. it is sad that those who fought for our freedoms find their own freedom restricted. it also and pecks current service members. for us to have a child or family member with this ability, the lack of access can be limited opportunity for their children or employment for spouses. the service members may have to face the difficult choice between a career enhancing tour of duty were leaving their loved ones behind. this is unfortunate because the department of defense provides many combinations for the needs a military family. dead dod will pay for all schooling supplies, equipment, and support for service members. if they fear negative stigma from starting the program they're likely to miss out on the benefits that might have allowed their children with

disabilities to accompany them on an encouraging overseas assignments. for obvious reasons we all support ratifying -- ratifying this vital treaty. and was pleased to cheer on the american legion. we have done our job serving their country. many sacrificing a great deal in doing so. we believe in this nation, our country should lead, the world is a better place with the u.s. steps up. when it comes to improving of rigidities for disabled americans who want to travel and work abroad for veterans believe we should have a seat at the head of the table. it is time to the united states to reaffirm his up as a leader for fairness and justice. we must end as an example for those with disabilities around the world, have done it before, and can do it again.

>> thank you, congresswoman. >> mr. chairman, thank you so much for the have jenny to be today. on behalf of of schooling, i am here in opposition to the treaty there are three reasons that i have today. first, despite the claims of the contrary, u.s. ratification of this treaty does impose binding legal obligations and would be their responsibility of the essay is to combine with international law. his statements to the contrary have been based primarily on in the course of litigation you recall making assertions. we do not hear citation of legal authority for these propositions , appropriate citations to qualified experts. one of the leading experts in

the world of international law. he responds to the tenor of the argument that has been raised. in a different context, but the principle is applicable. the united states seeks to ensure its adherents will not change a required change in u.s. law, policies, practices, even when they fall below its national standards. reservations designed to object in the law and practice are dubious. the states generally entered such reservations, the convention would be futile. friends of the united states have objected to the reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose. the judgment of others the will not submit the behavior to international judgment. it is offensive to many and conventions are only from other states. this is a treaty no one can

disagree with these arguments. question is, will the treaty and the legal effect that is being proffered by that proponents of the treaty. we do not hear citations. we don't hear consideration of the reports, the concluding observations. we don't hear the kind of legal analysis that will be appropriate for analyzing the legal impact of this treaty command i submit the duty of this committee not to determine said the the policy issues but to the jury what the legal meaning of the treaty is in its real application in that international and domestic law. the proponents misrepresent the nature of the treaty on the definition of disability. proponents argued the definition

is left blank said that each patient can decide for itself what it believes is the correct definition. a committee of the rights of persons with disabilities firmly disagrees that in the process of issuing a general observation, already issued concluding observations to about nine countries, argentina, china, very, peru, it's easy, so yeah, austria, all told that there nations definition of disability was improper. they follow a medical definition of disability whether the human rights definition. and the difference in that definition is important because hundred human rights definition of disability according to the committee a fall of disability law that permits the situation of a profound intellectually

disabled adult, parents and good human rights bottle of disability would not be allowed to be appointed a guardian instead they would have to only be allowed to support decision making rather than substantive. i said the records. asias that allow guardianships for profoundly disabled adults that there intellectually disabled are in violation of the treaty definition of what constitutes disability. that will be a profound change in american law. we will not have to comply with this tree standard, we are simply making if they promise to the rest of the world to my promise by our ratification that we, like all other nations will abate the requirements of the treaty. turning to the issue of homeschooling, i have been

criticized by many in the press for fear mongering on this topic, but have never seen in the legal analysis. it is conclusions and assertions . public international law, coached seven national championship teams that debate constitutional law, read millie analysis and daily read the analysis and answer it with little analysis to when that conjecture and loss version. legal analysis is based upon the failure of the crp to include the traditional right of parents to direct the be a education of children is followed.

supporting and defining the education of duties, the word. is not mentioned. the best interest of the child's has been applied in its national human rights context including the highest court in germany has held that homeschooling is banned under the best interest of the child stand it. that ban has been upheld. our administration appealed the success will grant asylum to a family and i represent now. our justice department contends that charity is within its rights. >> i have allowed you to go committed a half overtime. >> of sorry. my clock is now working. thank you. i will pause.

>> secretary. if you would put your microphone >> thank you. as many of you know, and had the pleasure of wearing numerous ads in public service of our country . for someone to share the story of lifers public-service row, that of the united states infantry says sgt in southeast asia. frankly i have had diminished eerie sense to miss a technically i am a disabled veteran and cannot attribute the loss solely to military service. most of the time at million disabled veterans can. i am proud to represent there cause as well as my own common to americans with disabilities at this hearing. i hope that after u.s. ratification and a lot of work with other nations americans with disabilities of along your face undue burdens abroad.

there's no greater example that on the front lines of armed conflict. service members fight to protect the moral integrity of mankind in the values of equality and liberty. there is one thing to take away from the testimony today, i hope is that the united states counts and that the up to it each of the dow. my fellow veterans, obviously i am a member. the american legion combat veterans of world wars, the wounded warrior project. my initial experience beginning gray school of my dearest friend had a very serious disability. in enjoy the french, admire your courage. since those early years of monthly -- like the public service career has given me in sight.

i became chairman in 2005 because i believe we have to be more committed as a society to giving people the disabilities the epic city to establish their own self-worth, particularly through implement. it was no question that they would come out in full support of the treaty which echoes our own constitutional values and u.s. laws and to allow people with disabilities have the same up virginities as their counterparts. my testimony, which i encourage you very both describe how the convention advances and to my belief, democracy, but if its businesses in ultimately will advance the portuguese for americans with disabilities worldwide. as a young congressman and was proud to support the ada. all men are created equal. whether you are born with one arm, down syndrome, without sight, injured on the job or a service to your nation, you have

the right to life, liberty, in pursuit of happiness. our founders did not preserve this motion because it is the right thing to do but government is the strongest the country's attempt to follow in the footsteps of the u.s. to create similar but often inferior legislation of the 88. yet the country is not even attempted to meet our standards. frankly, many simply just don't know how to do it. i believe strongly that it benefits the u.s. this treaty will enhance, not lessen, american sovereignty by allowing this to export constitutional values abroad. it is not bad to export our value system. he will continue to lead the world in establishing a democratic model for participation of all its

citizens, including the most vulnerable ones. i wanted to reference a gentleman behind me from georgia who would tell you that he has established an organization in his own country. the country of georgia. john mccain kamal working at the national organization of disability. his own country is looking to america to validate his presence in the quality. is the american. in closing, i urge you to support ratification of the treaty. the treaty advances democracy in business and above all validates for the rest of the world the dahlia people with disabilities. i respect the differences in our nation's leaders on many topics like stand firm that we must come to gather on the topic of his ability. is not a political, racial,

religious, or other barrier, an experience that has and will touch a sullen some point in our lives. as the heat may fade of their declaration of independence is up to us to enter the words of equality her everlasting. although our own laws will not change u.s. ratification of the disabilities treaty will validate that all men are, may become a cool. senators will and a resounding impact on the billion persons with disabilities in the unit states and around the world. at a key for the opportunity to share this testimony before the committee. >> make you, mr. secretary. >> it is a distinct pleasure for me, mr. chairman, ranking member, other members of the committee to testify once again before his committee in favor of the ratification of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. history is an important component of the worldwide

effort to advance disability rights. it would mark a major step forward and promote the rights of some 1 billion men, women, children with disabilities around the world who lack recognition of the preeminent human-rights and serve to confirm american in disability rights of the world stage. today we're witnessing a new era of world wide recognition of disability rights. a total of 158 countries have signed the convention. 138 have ratified its terms. as many of you may know, had been involved for many years and then the father of a man with intellectual and physical disabilities. my son, peter, seriously brain injured at the age of four months in the 1960 automobile accident such as italy took the life of his mother, my first wife.

as attorney general, it was my great privilege to serve as the point person for the administration of president george h. w. bush and the bipartisan effort to secure the passage of the americans with disabilities act of 1990. we find ourselves in a different place today. we have had the benefit of expansive discussion of the provisions of the disabilities 3-d any impact on u.s. domestic law and on the nature of u.s. on the world and the very nature of that treaty process itself. most important to me was the committee's adoption of a series of reservations understandings in declarations. helps to clarify the scope and meaning in the convention. it would require no change to u.s., federal, our state law and would have no impact on the federal budget.

this would insure the obligations that we have taken to the convention are limited to the authority of the federal government and do not reach areas of the state and local jurisdiction. mandated by the constitution and laws of the united states. such plans of misguided. quite simply extraordinary. in the u.s. senate attaches conventions to any treaty these conditions become part of the treaty and have a force and effect of law. by its own term it allows nation .

incompatible with the object of the convention. it states that its purpose is to promote, protect, and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental pre -- freedoms that all persons with disabilities and to promote respect for their inherent dignity. the object and purpose is to recognize, include by a committee last year fall well within this legal standard. some have raised alarms over the existence of a disability committee. it it would have an advisory role and there would be no call for its being injured as a law nothing in this treaty home schooling or making other decisions. the convention embraces the

principles of the individual is which emphasizes the importance of the role of parents of children with disabilities in making decisions on behalf of their children. many of the parents choose no school and the conventions pacific derecognize and protect the important role of the family ratification of the disability rights convention is in the opportunity to export to the world this is a chance to use our rich national experience which has gained the respect to extend the principles worldwide here today have no domestic protection. we must ratify this convention

so that we can to fill the role of foreign leader that is expected of us. thank you for your attention. >> inky. >> chairman, ranking member, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to present my views on the convention of the rights of persons that disability. appreciate high hopes i am one of many who do not share the optimism while it might help improve conditions abroad american ratification of the treaty will not help. secretary carey recently addressed the un high level seven on disability and, of the ada the gold standard. there in that form nations like russia declared the united states is there room model answers that the u.s. is not only at the table but the head of the table. when it comes to treaties and

other governments will comply with or shirk obligations whether we find ourselves to them are not. i have been asked to address the controversial term. i took part in the last round of trade negotiations, and there is no better example of the way you disregard the will of nations by routinely interpreting international obligations. first, 23 nations opposes term. this sludge number would usually have in debate. to get into the treaty proponents had to resort to things like secret meetings. nonetheless emanations or assured that that treaty created the new rights and that the chair would not be used to promote abortion. many nations took the additional step of putting this in the record of the day of adoption. fifty nations for nearly half false statements made that day

focused on reenforcing misunderstanding flooding the american statement. some reiterated that believing that it would be accepted and honored in good faith. but says the time of adoption fears have come true. countries are being pressured. for example, in may there was an announcement that it interpreted the disabilities convention has hitting chavez and his ears all the right to convert its reproductive and sexual health services. .. >> including the human rights committee who told peru that

carrying a child to term was cruel and inhuman. they removed reservations encouraging other governments to pressure the countries. sadly, the committee on the rights for persons with date has taken up the practice pressuring spain and hungary on their laws. they told countries they should remove all reservations and this includes reservations that preserve the se prep sigh of national institutions over the treaty if there's a conflict. now, in theory, they have no authority to interpret treaties in ways that create new obligations or alter the substance of the treaty. in reality, they are accepting the interpretations as creating new obligations. the high court of colombia changed their laws as authoritative. spain liberalized it in 2010 stating it did so because of the treaty, and, also, the world

health organization's definition is one rejected by u.n. member states for 20 years. now, third, these cases could reverberate in the law. they are not isolated in just this term, but a problem affecting a wide range of social and economic policies that americans care about. the u.n. human rights treaty system is in disarray. now things are so bad last year that the u.n. general assembly launched a process to attempt to hold them accountable. even the united states said in those negotiations that before americans give more money to the u.n. human rights treaty system, we have to be sure committees will not do business as usual and that reforms actually have effect. simply put, states, parties, and u.n. bureaucracies find themselves on the interpretation of the text of the treaties and very purpose of the u.n. treaties system. we do well to steer clear of lending further credibility or

subjecting laws to scrutiny, but even without ratifying the treaty, americans are making life better for disabled persons all over the world through generosity, through 77 programs at usaid and countless other ways and example of our laws, and dip mats should continue to wield the credibility in promoting fairness, opportunity, for persons with disabilities around the world. thank you. >> thank you, professor meyer. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member, and members of the committee to appear before you today. unlike my colleagues, i'm not here to support or oppose the convention. rather, i'm here to hopefully clarify the legal status of the work of the committee of disabilities. i'm a professor of international law at the university of georgia and formally an attorney adviser to the state departments and a legal adviser. senators, as you know, the crpd has a committee of the rights of persons with disabilities with the purpose to consider reports

made by the state's parties and make suggestions, recommendations, and comments on this and they interpret definitions created by the convention. these are interpretations issued by the committee are not legally binding and the committee does not have any authority to compel any changes to u.s. law. there's no legal authority for that. neither, though, are the interpretations without a fact. the obligations created by the convention are vague, and thus no state party is able to form an opinion about it or whether any other party complies with the convention unless it forms a specific notion of what constitutes compliance. it is, therefore, possible that other states' parties look to the committee and possible and

likely that other states' parties look to the opportunity and look to the convention informing their view of what counts as compliance with the convention and the convention's obligations. this role for expert committees and human rights organizations sometimes led them to claim that they have -- that their interpretations of the conventions are charged with implementing while not legally binding or entitled to considerable authoritative wait. this is not a term that's defined anywhere, nevertheless it's an authority that they have asserted. when they have asserted it, the state department has always been clear to push back and point out that these interpretation issued by the committees are not legally binding. nevertheless, the claim of authority remains out there and somewhat unclarified. at the same time, declining to ratify the convention does not ensure the committee's interpretations will not be asserted against the united states. the committee's interpretation

of the convention are possible basis for the formation of customer international law. customary international law is formed be a consistent and state practice, but it does not require the universal consent of the governments that can be bound. therefore, committee's interpretations could be a basis of customary international law, and moreover, it's the practice of expert committees under the human rights bodies to cite to each other's work and each other's interpretations of human rights laws when they deal with overlapping obligations. therefore, it's possible that the united states would find work under -- interpretations for the committee on disabilities cited against it in other ratification bodies, human rights treaties bodies. this afternoon, if the united states ratifies the convention, a strong package of ruds makes clear the united states does not view the work of the committee for the basis in forming customary international law, nor does the u.s. understand the committee's interpretation are

reported in any special wait by the state's party. this goes potentially beyond the understanding incorporated in the resolution for ratification last year. to make clear what the united states' views are i with respect to the interpretations created by the committee. with that, i will stop, and i look forward to your questions. >> well, that's a first time i saw a law professor not take the full five minutes. [laughter] we compliment you. [laughter] for your preciseness. let's start a round of questions. thank you to all witnesses for their testimony, and briefly, a claim of authority is different than authority itself, is it not? >> that's correct, yes. a understanding would clearly create a nullity as to any claim in the context of the american

law, would it not? >> for purposes of domestic law, a strong package should sufficient to ensure that u.s. courts, for example, would be sufficient to ensure that u.s. courts do not recognize, for example, private causes of action based upon the convention, but simply nullifying the claim of authority wouldn't necessarily affect the ability of other states' parties in the convention to adopt interpretation of the convention coming out of the committee as it's with their interpretations -- >> other state parties meaning other countries? >> yes, sorry, other countries. >> thank you. secretary ridge, i understand that you're strong supporter of home schooling, and you're aware of the arguments last year and some made here today, and can you speak to that issue? >> i certainly am, during my time as governor, we saw rather

substantial increase, and i think the colleague, governor thornburg, attorney general thornburg addressed the issue, and, brainingly, there's some families with dates for in reasons who choose to provide schooling at home. i do have a couple thoughts on that. one, relying on the quality of legal interpretation that i had an opportunity to review, and, also, recognizing the reservations and the understandings and declarations that the committee worked its will to graft on to the treaty considered last year. this matter is addressed. this treaty is not affect the ability of the parent to act in the best interest of the child, and it's, again, according to people whose opinions i respect, but the fact of the matter is this treaty cannot be interpreted to bar or prohibit

any parent from home schooling their chirp. for me, it's absolutely nonissue, and i'm a strong proponent of home schooling. >> thank you. congresswoman duckworth, you come from a family of military veterans and developed a close relationship with senator dull who spent time with you in your recovery, and you served the assistant secretary of veteran affairs. what do you say to the critics who say this does not help u.s. veteran, and what do you say to the assertion that it speaks for veterans and opposes the treaty? >> well, mr. chairman -- >> if you would put your microphone on. >> i want to start by saying my understanding is that am vets neither opposes nor supports the treaty. they are neutral on it, but i will tell you that iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, the american legion, they all support the treaty and recognize the fact that our veterannings

should have the opportunity to travel internationally, especially our disabled veterans. they set a wonderful example wherever they go. i mentioned our post-9/11 gi recipient who would love to take advantage of foreign study programs so that they can spend time in a foreign university. they cannot do that. when i've gone to visit germany and italy, bases there, and visited with our wounded warriors, i often could not take them off post, even on a four-hour pass, to go see the sites downtown because they were not accessible, and so i think that those who state that this would not help veterans have to better understand the situation for our military men and women and their families. many of these posts are duty stations that are very advantageous towards one career, and if you can't bring the family with you because you have a child with a disability or a spouse with a disability, you have to make a tough choice.

my career or leave the family behind? that's not a choice i want any service member to have to make. >> thank you. doctor, let me ask you, there's many in the pro-life community who disagree with you that the treaty somehow takes a position concerning abortion; isn't that true? >> senator, first, i never said that the treaty wouldn't help, but u.s. ratification. i agree with the congresswoman that these countries -- >> would you answer my question, though? >> yes, senator. it's true, national rights to life issue a statement at the time of the adoption of the treaty in 2006 saying the treaty had nothing to do with abortion, and, in fact, we found that after that time, that the treaty body is, in fact, interpreting it as that. the argument is not with me so much as it is with the committee misinterpreting the treaty. >> in fact, dozens of country that prohibit or restrict access to abortion including brazil, chilly, egypt, argentina, and el salvador ratified the treaty, and the most fearest supporters

are pro-life. moreover, the president of the catholic family and human rights institute that i understand is your boss pennedded an article titled "u.n. dates treaty does not create abortion rights." the article describes in detail how the parties negotiating the treaty made clear, and i quote, that countries are free to keep laws protecting the inborn in place and urges other pro-life activists to stop arguing about the phrase "sexual reproductive health." i ask unanimous concept to include that article in the record. senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think, actually, a number of witnesses have additional materials. i'd like to ask unanimous concept whatever materials they have are entered into the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. i would imagine that every senator here on the whole idea of having a convention for the

rights of people with disability that want to support that, i can't imagine anybody looks at something that might advance to the rights of people with disabilities. i think people start with a great deal of optimism, and it's my sense that mr. thornburg and mr. ridge and ms. duckworth want to see those rights advanced throughout the world andment to see the u.s. -- and want to see the u.s. playing leadership in that area. at the same time, i would assume that the three of you would not want to have a convention to have any effect whatsoever on domestic law, meaning you would not want a treaty we have with other -- all three of you in agreement with that? it seems to me that instead of, you know, maybe taking an approach where we try to look at people who have concerns like that as enemies that the concern would be to try to figure out a way to make sure that you have a treaty that advances the effort that the three of you are here

about, and you have done such a wonderful job with, and at the same time, to try to make sure that the treaty does not have the unintended consequences like the case. it's pretty phenomenal today that the supreme court is hearing a case where that exact thing occurred. my question first would be to mr. meyer to say, to ask you this question. we have the ruds issue, which hopefully we'll be examining over the next few weeks. is there a way, in your opinion, to write ruds on the front end of a treaty that would absolutely ensure there's no way for this treaty to effect either the federalism issues that we have to deal with or to cause a court to look to the treaty to effect the individual lives in the country. is there a way to come cognisent to write ruds in that way? >> thank you for the question.

with respect to the federalism issue, a federal reservation could address the federalism problems identified. federalism res vaition could be dropped in stronger than the reservation that current di-- the reservation attachedded to the resolution last year. this would make clear what the enumerated powers that congress possesses are, and therefore, reserve out of any obligations that couldn't be satisfied to the exercise of the powers. i think a set of understandings could be drafted that make clear that the united states does not report any significance to the interpretations of the convention afforded by the committee. this goes a long way in addressing the concern that the convention might be used to interpret federal statutes including potentially

preexisting statutes like the ada. the current understanding or the understanding attached to the resolution for ratification last year spoke only to the issue whether or not there was the authority to legally compel changes to u.s. law. the committee clearly does not have the authority to legally compel changes to u.s. law, but one could imagine in the written testimony suggesting some language that might be helpful to further make clear that the united states accords no wait to the interpretations of the committee. >> so it's your belief that the ruds in place for the ones that came to the committee last year could fully be written in such a way, could be enhanced, to make sure that these types of issues didn't come up? >> yes, i think it's possible to draft ruds that are stronger and would address these concerns more wholesomely. >> so to the two witnesses with specific concerns about specific

issues, do you agree there's a way to address the concerns that you have by writing the ruds in a different way than they are now written? >> one of the problem with the reservations has been stated as they can be removed, so if that was the protection in removed, i assume -- >> they'd have to be removed by congress; right? >> that's right. >> but, i mean, i want to solve this problem, but i can't solve every problem that comes up 20 years from now, but the fact is we, ourselves, would only be passing a law that solved this problem, and my question is, do you think that -- >> it would protect us from misinterpretation. well, in the cases of rover v. simmons, the supreme court cited a portion of the civil and political rights cove covenant we specifically reserved on. the reservation may or may not help us in that regard. >> if i could, if you would

answer the question -- >> senator, i can't imagine a reservation that's legally acceptable. that is it's consistent with the object and purpose of the treaty that would satisfy the reservations that would be needed to comply with the three positive witnesses. you'd have to write the reservation to say this treaty shall not bind the united states to comply with the standards of the treaty and have no domestic legal effect. that reservation would be fine and i would support the treaty at that point in time. it's meaningless then. what's argued is that the treaty has no domestic meaning, and treaties, when we accept a treaty, the only nation in the world that we're binding is us. we don't bind anybody else. our ratification has no external, legal effect anywhere. what's argued is external political effect, and there's no record shown that our ratification of any other treaty has had external political effect that's been effective in

seeking compliance with other human rights treaties. it's a shell game, an empty promise being made. we need to determine whether or not we're going to comply with this treaty or not, and if we're not going to comply with the treaty, we ought not to ratify it. the number one thing the country should do with treaty obligations is keep them in good faith. >> mr. chairman, if i could, when i was speaking to the doctor, and i said we can't solve all problems in 20 years, what i meant to say is we cannot keep another congress from doing something else down the road. that was the point i wanted to make. i appreciate the witnesses. i'm looking forward to further conversation. >> as i call on senator boxer, if ruds never have consequence, what the ranking member did in the strategic arms treaty has no consequence whatsoever. i don't think he believes that. senator boxer. >> thank you, senator chairman, and ranking member senator corker. what an amazing day this is.

i hope it's a turning point. i really do. you know, we all have our passions on a variety of social issues, issues that divide us deeply, really deeply, but this treaty is really only about one thing. it's about improving the lives of a billion people worldwide, people with disabilities, and 50 million of them living in america. ratifying the treaty is about making sure that we, and i think this is something congresswoman dorkworth stated that when we, the united states, encourage a country to improve rights and protections, that country can't say, hey, you pail failed to ratify the disability treaty, so we're not going to listen to you, and believe me, that's what is happening. it could help encourage countries like donna. listen to what the human rights said. many disabled people live in up

regulated camps, chained to trees, concrete floors for weeks or months on end, beaten, denied food, forced to endure involuntary treatments. this treaty is about helping to right this terrible wrong, and, of course, as far as veterans are concerned, how would we turn away from the veterans? our veterans are unbelievable. i have a care center thanks to senators innway and stevens who got that in san fransisco. you can't keep the verett raps down. we see that right here. you can't. they want to, yes, travel the world, they do. we need to pass the treaty. let's talk about what the treaty is not about. this is not about any particular health care procedure. it's not about abortion. it's not about the vasectomies

or cancer screenings or dental exams or prostate exams. it's about making sure that people are treated equally on all fronts including their need to get health care. i want to place in the record a wonderful op-ed piece written by dr. bill frist. it came out today -- if i might -- >> without objection. >> and i'll ask congresswoman duckworth to comment on this. here's the title, "why the u.s. must lead on disabilities treaty." in it, dr. frist discusses the treaty that protects the most vulnerable including reproductive health care. he correctly points out that, quote, i quote him, i want to be precise, this is him, "in many parts of the world, people with dates regardless of age are believed to be sexually immature or inactive. the assumption can make them targets for rape and other sexual crimes while at the same

time gynecological and obstetric care is inappropriate. they are sterilized or have forced abortions because they have a disability." dr. frist concludes that the treaty sexual and reproductive health language is a necessary provision to protect -- to protect the disabled. he unequivocally states, quote, the treaty does not create any new services not previously available or legally sanctioned in an adopting country. so, representative duckworth, do you agree that the treaty does not create any new services, not previously available or legally sanctioned in any adopting country? >> senator boxer, yes, i do agree with that statement. the word is never mentioned once in the treaty.

what this treaty will do is provide her with the same rights to access to health care that the rest of the population in that nation has access. >> thank you. i wanted to make that case. now dr. farris, you say you speak for the disabled, but your statements are directly contradicted by organizations that work every day 24/7 to protect disabled kids like the united states international com on dates who states, quote, this treaty protects parental rights and highlights the important role of parents in raising children with disabilities, unquote. tash, you know that organization says, quote, nothing included in this treaty prevents parents from home schooling. this treaty embraces the spirit of individuals with dates education act, americans with disabilities act, and all.com nondiscrimination legislation, but you, dr. farris argue the

opposite. now the u.n. can get control of them. well, if i say my opinion, that is nonsense if a child wears glasses, they are considered disabled. i wonder what is bind -- behind that? i ask the question for the record. have you tried to raise funds telling paimpts this treaty limits ability to decide what is best for their children? >> senator, our organization is funded by membership dues, not by contributions. >> so you've never sent out an e-mail asking for funds to fight -- >> no. home school legal defense association is associated with parentalrights.org, and they sent out fundraising. >> thank you very much. >> but, senator -- >> yeah? >> the substance answer is the treaty does not ban home

skelling. the treaty shifts the decision making authority from parentings to the government. that's what the meaning of the best interest is. >> that's not something i agree with, nor do any of the org'ses. >> well -- >> thank you very much. >> senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. professor meyer, are you particular with the case being argued before the supreme court today bond versus the united states? >> i am. >> can you speak to how that a relevant to the discussion here today on this treaty? >> well, sure. to be very brief, if bond was convicted of violating the chemical weapons agent. she -- >> in federal court; correct? >> correct. it's the federal statute, implementing the chemical weapons convention. what's basically at issue is whether or not congress had the authority to pass the chemical weapons implementation act. urn a case dating back now 90

#-plus years called missouri v. holland, the supreme court held that in some circumstances, the treaty power authorizes the federal government to make a treaty, and the treaty is otherwise valid. congress has the authority to enact a statute it would not otherwise have under the enumerated powers. >> the authority to the obligation -- i'll read out of article 4, general obligations of the treaty. it says, to this end article 4 requires state parties to adopt all appropriate measures to implement the rights in the convention, modify legislation, practices, discriminate against persons with disabilities. that seems like a rather strong obligation. what am i missing here? >> senator, it seems like a strong obligation. it says the state parties undertake to ensure and promote the human rights and fundmental freedoms. >> to me, i'm hearing from supporters of the bill this does

not obligate u.s. to do anything. sounds to me like it's a strong obligation. do you want to comment on that? >> yes, senator. that's exactly the point. the united states is making a solid promise in international law that we comply with the treaty despite whatever federalism reservations or other reservations, those simply have the effect of deciding which agency of government has the duty of implementing a treaty, the the courts or the congress or the states, but the duty to implement the treaty is never extinguished. we have to implement the treaty or else we're in violation of international law. does that mean that somebody can invade the country militarily because we don't comply with the treaty? enforcement of international law is problematic in a general sense, and so can they force us to obey the treaty? no, not realistic. they can't force us to. are we going to undertake a treaty knowing that we're going

to disobey it? that's not right. we ought to undertake a treaty obligation only if we intend to fully and fairly have good faith. we're not going to do that what i hear today. when the united states pretends to ratify a treaty and undertakes nothing, that diminishes our understanding in the community. >> attorney general thornberg, we all recognize that the u.s. is the gold standard on disability rights. if we're at the gold standard, i mean, i certainly understand why it's in our best interest to have other countries obligate themselves to meet our gold standard, but i don't get why we should be ratifying a treaty that obligates us to do things that are still open to or subject to interpretation. that's my concern. i think that's the core concern of those that may not be