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 supportive of the treaty currently.

can you explain that to me? >> i think so. the basic gap in understanding is what the consequences of ruds are. the treaty that's adopted includes the reservations in understandings and deck collar rations that accompany it. when we say we're not going to do something that we specified we do not include within the am bit of the treaty amended by ruds, it doesn't mean we flout convention, but that we implement it with the ruds in mind, and that's true not only of what the united states does, but other countries -- >> if we're the gold standard, what do we have to interpret in implementing as a country? what do we have to implement? >> nothing new that we're obliged to do under this because, frankly, it draws so completely and thoroughly on americans with with disabilities

acts. >> why do we have to do it? i understand other countries ratifying and implementing it. i'm still not getting why we have to. >> the u.s. is a world leer, senator. >> and we passed the bill showing leadership. >> in order to preserve the status and main tape -- maintain credibility as the gold standard manufacturer, we simply have to share that insight that we've aquite aquite a few -- inquired and urge other nations of the world within a structured frame work to follow that in order to assure that those countries and their citizens who we heard describe today in some detail suffer from the lack of this kind of statute, their right to boot strap themselves into a gold standard position. >> well, thank you, thank you, mr. chairman. >> i think, senator, you raise a question that many raised, and i

think it deserves a considered answer. let me take a moment simply to say while i and many others believe this treaty will not impose any new obligation on the united states since we already have the highest standard in the world are our advocacy by virtue of ratifying it puts us in leadership position to get the world to move in the direction so that tammy and mark or anyone similar will be ail to travel anywhere in the world and have the greater likelihood that their access, fulfill their god-given potential whether it's in a job, in business, whether that is for travel, whether it's for advocacy will be able to be achieved and that american businesses who already lead the world in terms of access the standards, that those standards are the standards that other countries adopt so eric legally-

legrand can travel to other laces in the world to have the access. that's why ratification of the treaty expands our reach and advocacy to get the world, not simply by reflection looking at what the united states does, but its advocacy. it's a question raised and deserves a thoughtful answer. >> mr. chairman, can i offer a few -- >> let me, if i can -- >> turning to senator cardin, and you can work in a an answer. >> you bet. >> i'll try to leave time for you to respond to that. let me further answer senator johnson quoting from general thorn burg's written statement which i think is very appropriate herein in that we should not we should not be so proud how to meet challenges of providing even better opportunities for people with dates. this is a gathering.

doesn't mean we dhaing the laws, but we learn how to do things better, and that's part of being part of an international community in effort to help people with disabilities. echt to acknowledge a former colleague who is here, great help when i came to the house of representatives, on this issue, so many other issues, and tony, it's good to see you. i also want to acknowledge mrs. newhouse in the room who attended university of maryland school of law, and she's bilateral amputee wearing prosthetic legs, traveled to over 40 countries for work and studies and those barriers in study, work, and barriers for those individuals. nice to have you here. mr. chairman, and i guess to general thornburg or to secretary ridge, i'll give you the comans to respond to this, we all acknowledge that the

treaty is based upon classically u.s. law, the ada. we passed that in 1990. i remember in 1991, congressman hoyer traveled to moscow and became part of the documents that started the effort to use u.s. law as the model to protect universal rights of people with disabilities so the united states has been in the leadership. the point that i raise, failure to ratify compromises u.s. ability to advance standards globally. i mean, it weakens our credibility to participate in the development internationally of the rights of people with dates and as chairman and others pointed out, it also compromises very much american citizens who are in other countries and their own protections that we ratify the treaty that we're not in the

same position as we would for the right of the people of our own country. secretary ridge, your comments generally. >> thank you very much, senator. i wanted to respond to, i thought, an appropriate question from senator johnson if i might. regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, we all feel very fortunate and grateful that we live in the united states of america. it's a very unique place. if america was a product, and we do sell our product overseas, what's our brand? i think our brand is a constitution, rule of law, and our values system. under that brand and value system, there is a notion of equal urn the eyes of the law, and i know that brand in value system is the ada and trying to elevate the rights of the americans with disabilities. when we have the opportunity to advance america the product, not through the military, not

through diplomacy, but to be the con veeper around an issue that's humanitarian in nature, and that is elevating the rights of people globally with disabilities, i think we enhance the brand and product by enhancing ourselves. we say to the rest of the world, think of it from their point of view, we ask the rest of the world to adopt america's standard. we found from time to time that's difficult to do. with the ratification of 100-plus countries, we see on this issue regardless of where they are, they like the brand. they like the values system. they want to embrace the notion of people with disabilities. the gentleman behind me is from the cane institute for international leadership, a remarkable young man, disabled in 2003. he established an organization in georgia, and he's the first

one to tell you, you know what the country of georgia looks to? they see whether or not, among other things, whether america ratifies the treaty. i suggest that regardless of where we are on the political aisle, we all have an interest in promoting america, and by doing so, promoting the brand, the value system, there's much a lasting impact of anything else we can do dipmatically, and no better place to convene and lead that discussion globally than the united nations. that's an appropriate question, senator johnson, and i hope you embrace the notion there's great value globally, internationally, we don't sacrifice sovereignty or change laws to advance our interest, and we advance our brand and values system. thank you, senator, for the opportunity to share those thoughts with you. >> thank you. senator flake. >> thank you. if i could follow up with regard to the case the supreme court is

currently hearing, bond versus u.s.. were you surprisedded when you heard that the federal government was actually suing or using a treaty or convention in order to bring charges against an individual with a chemical weapons treaty? were you surprised this was used in this fashion? >> yeah. >> okay. if you're surprised by that, what can reassure us you won't be surprised that this treaty is used for a similar purpose? >> i think by that time the supreme court would throw out that decision and the basis for it. >> but the fact that it's even brought and survived one challenge -- >> well -- >> gone up one level as well. >> let me mention that, sad to say, that the department of justice does not always agent wisely, and that there are

occasions when mistakes are made in the pursuing of cases in controversies that really don't rise to the level where they're appropriate. there's examples, however, on the other side as well, and that is where the department has rightfully stretched the law to cover situations that clearly were not contemplated. i'm thinking of the rodney king case, for example, where he was ultimately convicted under the federal civil rights laws when when -- or the police officers were convicted, excuse me -- there was a police brutality case, not a civil rights case, and they maintain a degree of flexibility that we use in particular situations where the occasion araises, but i don't participate that happening on a day-to-day basis op a treaty like the u.n. treaty.

clearly, we have to put some semblance of judgment and confidence in the dumb of the our lawmakers and those who execute the laws. they'll make mistakes. the mistake in the chemical warfare case. >> were you surprised to hear the bond case? >> [inaudible] it was brought to my attention a few hours, and i don't know enough to comment. i would say, however, that based on the experience of an individual i respect enormously, and he's seated to my right, i align myself with his response. we all know. i mean, we all know from recent experience that we've all questioned the judgment of the department of justice on several more recent occasion, and i don't think there could ever be any guarantee that there wouldn't potentially be litigation. we live in a litigious society. it doesn't mean --

>> this is not the federal government, and -- >> well, we should expect better judgment -- >> well, we should, but we have a tough time legislating a lot of other things let alone judgment so we'll never be able to do that. i think if you make perfect the enemy of the good and conclude somehow litigation undermines this, i just have not drawn that cop collusion from what i read, but i can't draw analogy or comparison between the present case of the supreme court and this treaty. >> well, let me tell you, it surprised the heck out of me that the federal government was -- >> surprised me as well. >> in using this, it would also surprise me if it works through the supreme court and they agree with the department of justice here. having said that, i think when assurances are made in this hearing and elsewhere that these would never be used as a basis

to hold anybody in the u.s. account, toking the for this treat -- to account for this treaty, then that rings hallow today when this case is heard by a supreme court. i would think that in -- it would behoove us at least to see just as you say you were surprised that case was brought, we'd be surprised that the supreme court ruled this way as well, but it behooves us to see how they rule before they go ahead with this. that's just the way i feel here, and i -- i tended to discount some of the claims that this applying to u.s. law. i had questions about whether it's worth it simply because we say on one hand it matters a lot, and on the other hand, we say it really doesn't matter, and what's the use of the treaty if it's treated like that, but

here i think we're all surprised at the action of the department of justice here, and i think we ought to see how the supreme court rules before moving ahead. >> all right, thank you, mr. chairman. >> i understand the senator's concern. i appreciate it. justice department has prosecuted cases on federal statutes, not implementations of treaties that go afar in the field of what the government intended and there's nothing to do with the treaty on the honor services act, the supreme court termed provisions of what prosecutions were, so you can never totally rely that, you know, the justice department is made up of -- >> will be affected at the end of the day. >> that's a notary public treaty example piece of legislation that was used in an interappropriate way for prosecution as the supreme court determined so there's no absolute garp see, and since the

bond case has been raised several times, i think there's a bit of a differentiation here that should be consideredded to know. bond involves congress' authority under both the commerce clause and the treaty power along with the necessary and proper clause. the treaty power would not be relevant to u.s. implementation because the ada does not rely on the treaty power. in fact, it was pass before the convention was negotiated, and the commerce clause analysis addressing the chemical weapons convention implementation act is unlikely to be relevant to the ada, a statute already extensively litigated in the supreme court so i think there is -- i understand the concern, but i think there's other differentiations in this respect. >> would the gentleman yield for a second? the bond case has nothing to do with the commerce clause. it's under the treaty here. second, i say that the certainty with which we're all saying this

won't apply with this year it shaken by the bond case. >> i appropriate that. as in the other case, that has nothing toot with the treaty, the supreme court found how that was used to prosecute people was up constitutional, and you can't protect against that until you get to the supreme court which is why we have a supreme courtment i think that the bond case has three elements to it. it has the treaty power, but it also has questions that arise under the commerce clause and necessary and proper klaus, and in that respect, it's different. senator dure bin. >> i want to continue this because we raise the issue as if it stops us told. we can't go forward on this date convention until we work out the bond case. i would say to professor meyer that i think there's a clear distinction here. the bond case is not

rised-under-par the treaty, the convention with chemical weapons. this is prosecuted under a separate act of congress implementing the treaty. two different things. when we come to the date act, what's the implementation act under the convention for disabilities? there is none. the only act is the americans with disability act that's been on the book for 20 years. have we tested that for 20 years? has that eliminated home schooling? i don't think so. has it mandated abortion across america? no, it hasn't. the americans with disabilities act is the implementing act adopted ahead of the treaty. the bond case is dealing with the act on the convention

weapons treaties, two separate actions by congress. one ratifying the convention on chemical weapons, two, passing a law called the implementation act, the law of the land. now the supreme court will decide if that law is proper. conflating the two, one of the scholarly colleague, the junior senator from texas, said in a piece in the "washington post" that if the supreme court concludes the treaty is used to prosecute americans regardless of the constitutional rights, the ramifications could be alarming. i think that was on all sorts of opportunities. the prosecution is not under a treaty. the prosecution is under the implementation act. it's different. it's a law of congress. i'm stopped cold here by mr. farris that this ends home schooling in america. is that your position? >> that's not my position, but

that the treaty changes the legal requirements in the country that it's not just correct to say there is no duty to change this in the treaty. i believe they will be required to be an implementation agent that complies with the requirements of the treaty. i think in that point in time, that's when the problems arise. >> thing that they are not asking for the acting and made it clear they are not seeking it because americans with disability act already is controlling and has been extensively litigated sets disability standards in our country, higher than any in the world, you don't find that convincing? >> that's the same administration that's prosecuting the home schooling family to try to expel them from the united states. who came here -- under the ada? >> no, they came here under our law of asylum, but the question in the case pending, that case

is also pending before the supreme court -- >> well -- >> well it's for a -- >> let me say -- >> i guess you don't want me to answer the question after all. >> you can't because you want to talk about something other than the american disabilities act or convention. that's what we're here to discuss. >> the convention has a different legal standard than the ada. >> i can tell you -- >> there's numerous organizations that say so. i include their citations in my written testimony. >> if -- >> i'm not the only one who says that. the crpd committee agrees with me. >> i say if we're going to have a battle of the organizations support and not supporting this, we prevail. we have the mainstream disability organizations across america who are supporting the adoption of this convention on dates. i -- just -- i struggle with the notion that we are going to stop this effort, this effort to extend the rights to the disabled around the world for fear of something which you can't clearly articulate when it comes to home schooling.

as mr. rich says, i don't know if it's congressman or secretary, but we've been friends in both capacity, what he's said, he supports home schooling. i do too. this is not going to affect home schooling. it's clear it will not, and the americans with disabilities act for 20 years has not affected home schooling. i yield back my time. >> senator mccain, who i want to extend my appreciation for his advocacy from the last effort and this effort has been invaluable voice in this regard. >> thank you. i thank all witnesses, and i appreciate thank dick thornburg and tom ridge. i think you prefer governor to the others, don't you? [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> there you go. [laughter] i want to thank you, and i remember with greg the day that then president of the united

states, gorge hw bush signed the agent on the lawn of the white house, and so many of our friendses disability community were there to celebrate what it's been. i don't know anyone who doesn't believe the passage of that act was not an unqualify success that gave opportunities for some of our disabled community to get ahead in our society which have rights which they previously have been deprived of. mr. meyer, you made sr. important constructive recommendations in my view in the legislation, in your statement, and i just would like to ask you a couple questions. on the issue of abortion, the resolution of advice and concept that this committee passed last year that contained how the treaty relates to u.s. law concerning abortion, quote, nothing in the convention, in the convention including article 25 addresses the provision of

any particular health program or procedure. do you think that's sufficient to address concerns raised about what effect this treaty would have on u.s. laws and policies regarding abortion, and if not, how would you recommend that we improve that provision that we adopted last year? >> well, senator, of course, as secretary ridge mentioned, we live in a legally bindingty gas country. we can't guarantee there's never going to be a lawsuit asserting that the convention creates certain abortion rights nor guarantee the committee on disabilities take a position. >> but do you have los angeles to strengthen that to lesson that likelihood? >> yes, with respect to the role of the committee, the language in the written testimony makes

clear the committee's interpretations of the convention are not entitled to any wait whatsoever would or any deference from, for example, u.s. courts, could go along way towards assuring that federal governments are not prone to following an interpretation that the committee might adopt that, for example, that congress would find objectionable. i also, the language referenced in the convention in general and the ruds make this clear is a nondiscrimination convention to a large extent. therefore, it does not reference the particular -- any particular procedure, but states there shall be no discrimination. >> well, i'd appreciate it, specific language, if you'd submit to us to lessen, obviously, abortion is a huge aspect with regard to many americans and affect the judgment of members of the committee, so i want to close

that as tightly as we can recognizing there may always be some challenges, but so i think you see my point. >> i do, senator. i'd be happy to read to you the language on the understanding that i think might help address the role of the committee. one example includes language that states the united states understands that the committee's interpretations of the convention are not entitled to any wait apart from that given to them by state's parties to the conventions. one could imagine modifying that to specifically reference federal federal courts or imagine modifying the los angeles to specifically reference that the united states understands there's no wait given to the u.s. courts unless the united states adopted an interpretation consistent with the domestic procedures regarding the creation of international obligations. >> mr. chairman, i hope that

maybe we can look at that language moving forward, and we have to ensure the community, obviously, this would not have any effect on present u.s. policy. have you seen violation of the rights of parents regarding the education of their children as a result of the treaties we ratified. as you know, the convention on the rights of the child, child -- children in armed conflict, optional protocol on children i guess in armed conflict. have you seen any serious restriction or violation of the rights of parents regarding the education of their children as a result of these previously senate ratified treaties? >> i'm not aware of any. >> would you agree that the senate can ratify the crpd in a way that protects the

prerogatives of parents and reaform the primacy of u.s. law as we have in the other instances? >> yes, i think it's possible that there's a package of ruds that would satisfy these concerns. >> and right now, do you see sufficient ruds, or should we have additional language? >> i think some of the additional language with respect to the role of the committee would be helpful in addressing some of these concerns going forward. i think, also, as i mentioned to senator corker, one could imagine on the federalism point potentially a stronger reservation to deal with the federalism issue, but i think that these ruds are available. i think the ruds can be drafted. >> i just like to -- i'm out of time, mr. chairman. thank you. >> thank you. senator? >> thank you, mr. chair, and the witnesses, the testimony, the questions have been helpful. one of the reasons i love being assigned to this committee as a new senator is the mission statement is pretty simple,

american leadership in the world is really the mission statement of this committee, and that is a combination of economic military diplomatic and moral leadership, and many of the witnesses have spoken to this. we have, as a country, shown great moral leadership on the issue of rights of folks with disabilities. off the top of my head and handy research tool here with testimony, the rehabilitation act of 189773, the education for all handicap children act 1975, individuals with disability education act 1990, americans with disability act 1990, there's others as well. those are the four i thought of off the top of my head. these are significant and really do set a gold standard for the world, but i think it's appropriate for us to make it part of the brand, governor ridge, and brag about it in the way you mentioned, and entering into the treaty will be good for our citizens with disabilities, good for citizens around the world with disabilities, and i also, just to my colleagues, really, this is addressed, i

think it's good for this body, this body, the senate and our committee, because this is one of those issues where i think the diagram overlapping between the various partisan positions is near complete. i couldn't help by notice as i was looking at the at a dates oe passage of all four of the seminole statutes, they were all passed and signed by a republican president. 73 nixon, 75, ford, the ada president bush 41 #. this is an issue where it's not what you normally see up here where democrats want to do something, republicans don't, or republicans want to do something and democrats don't. this has traditionally been about a bipartisan issue you fine in modern public policy in american life, and we ought not to sacrifice that. i think senator mccain's questions and some are professor meyer and attorney general's

testimony about -- and ranking member corker's questions about the drafting of the ruds and trying to make sure that we can solve some of the interim concerns that are fairly raised through the process, we shouldn't -- we should really diligently make the effort to do that because this has been such a good example of an issue on which we've been together. ..

i've seen firsthand the challenges facing people with disabilities. every individual regardless of the on in -- obstacle in their life. the united states has been a leader in working to end discrimination and break down barriers that -- >> senator. >> yes. >> go ahead. >> i want to thank secretary ridge for joining us. we acknowledged and agreed he had a plane to catch. thank you very much. there may be questions in the record that followup. we ask you to answer. >> senator, i'm sorry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as we know and discussed over 20 years ago the congress passed the american with disability ability. -- act. this is based on the same principles. equal opportunity, independence, seability, human dignity, and full and effective participation and inclusion in society. the people of the great nation

believe in the ideal and principles. it is time for our nation to stand up and show our commitment to these principles and the international community. i believe the convex officers the united states a forum to utilize our wealth, knowledge, and practical experiences to influence other nations in recognizing the right of people with disability. our nation is the opportunity to help countries from transition from isolation to removing obstacle and opening barriers which ends up helping our citizens in the process. the ratification demonstrations -- for individuals with disabilities. this convention is supported by more than 760 disability groups. 20 veteran service organization including the american legion, the veteran of foreign war, wounded warriors project, member of the business community including u.s. chamber of commerce. colin powell supports the convention. as i have an additional letter from general colin powell rather

than read it. i ask unanimous consent to have it included. >> without objection. >> thank you. for a couple of quick questions. attorney general, there's been misinformation, i believe, circulating regarding the impact of the convention in children. does the convention take away parents' right? allow courts to interfere with the parents' decision concerning their children. does the provision require a national registry of children born with disabilities? >> the registry is anticipated by the treaty as very similar to the laws we have in this country, which require that birth certificates and death certificates be taken note of enrolled. interestingly enough, many countries around the world have lacking today that kind of procedure. it poses a real threat in many

of the worst situations around the world of improper abortion technique or -- even. i view it as a signal advance not for the u.s. because i think both the federal and state level and local level we have the requirement. when you read in the headline about the kinds of things that are going in lesser developed country or dick at a timers. this, i think, is a very positive positive treaty requirement we can support. >> thank you. professor meyer, in your testimony it said having the opportunity nominate an american to serve on the committee in to appear before the committee is an effective way to ensure that the committee does not become a vehicle for creating, you know, customer mare international legal obligation that. can you further explain why you

think it's in the -- created by the cop venges? >> sure. as i suggested in the opening statement. one of the way the committee can have a legal effect even though it's nonbinding. it's through the creation of customer law. the turnlt for the united states to appear object to interpretation of the committee that might be thought to give rise to international obligation. can defeat that the united states would view as sun openable. there are example was this occurring in the context of, for example, the human right committee. with the human rights committee has taken positions that certain rules are custom area not

ratifying it does not remove the ability to object to the formation of international law either. like wise, there's some -- effect u.s. court not ratify and reduce the lukely hood that a u.s. court would find there to be a rule. the answer to your question that is that the ability to have an american nominate to american to serve on the democratic national committee and the ability to engage in call consistent with the u.s. interpretation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator markey. >> thank thank you very much, mr. chairman. it's great to have tammy duckworth here. in 1990 we passed the ada. it made sure there were onramp for the wheelchair everywhere in

our country. it would be great if she could go anywhere in the world and we are moving in the same direction. we thank you for your service. back in 1990 when we did the ada, i was the chairman of the telecommunications committee. so closed captioning for tv set or ensuring that a phone system is available for a deaf and blind person in the 1996 telecom act extended that as well. but then in 2010, -- very conservative will be here on the conservative site with conservative republican. able to. a law saying every one of the wireless devices had to have an onramp. we had to negotiate the massive organization of thousand of

companies because they have to sign off on it. and now the deaf and blind can use the device no matter where they are. wouldn't it be a good thing if it was true for the whole world? all deaf and all blind had the capacity? i would like the attorney general to come back to you ask and the question. what does it mean for the consumer electronic association of the dwriets have a market open up around the planet for all of these guys that would be available to hundreds of millions of deaf and blind who would be empowered to become part of their economies? >> to ask the question or answer it. [laughter] but not in congress. the war on tap to be spoken. you believe it's a self-evident truth. i didn't mean -- >> obviously we open up markets that are unavailable now either because of the governing process

in the country in question, or lack of resources or what have you. you a rolling consensus about the disiecialt and feasible. you can see remarkable advance around the world. the consumer electronic association has written a stating the u.s. ratification of the treaty would encourage greater demand for u.s. company skills and serves as fellow nations adhere to the international standards. there should be no doubt in other words that this was a great economic benefit for american companies as well. now, of course, we want to help those deaf and blind. that's the -- it's part of the bargain. we have believed because we pass the law first and pretty soon

there's going to be every citizens on the plan that has one of devices. twont be great if we were ensuring they were assessable for the deaf and blind as well. those devices made in the united already have to comply with that law. i think it's something we would beat and best interest. there are several countries including china, australia, and argentina who already submitted report disability committee. and i understand the chinese admitted they have a long way to go protect the right and interest a persons with disabilities if the chinese got serious about ensuring access to disabled person it would open up huge market for the united states, would it not? >> indeed. and given that the convention will open all of those markets, not just in china but around the world, wouldn't you agree that a vote for ratification is a vote

to support american businesses and create jobs in the united? >> i think that's perhaps why the chamber of commerce supports the treaty ratification. right no no one from the united is sitting on the disability committee if we had a delegate on the committee. do you think would help us businesses to expand the market overseas? >> would it not help in creating the rule of regulations that would be used in order to expand in other countries? >> one would expect that. >> congresswoman duckworth? >> i think the extent for u.s. firmses is underestimated right now. we do the adaptive device industry is a tremendously large one-and-one that we certainly dominate the world. we're not talking about justice the phone. but wheelchairs and buses, grab

bashes for showers. home schooling supplies for parents who want to teach the children at home. if we don't do this and american companies don't gain the credibility as being the world's leader. we open the door for other nations who are competing within these fields. places like germany and iceland. they have a industries and companies. we will lose the market share and lose our role as a leader in the world in producing these devices. >> yes. using her pond to teach her. but now we move from the pond to the palm pilot and the iphone and the ipad. that's the way so you to empower people. without that they're not empowered. we're doing something good across the planet as well. we're making sure we give people the ability to maximize it. and without these kind of device

you don't have the capacity to be able to communicate and work. and so this is now the essential it makes it possible for the first time in history for every deaf and blind person participate. i think it would be wrong to do that on a moral basis but deny our own companies. the ability to make these products and to create jobs here in america. you can go good and do well at at the same time by supporting the treaty. thank you, mr. chairman. the ideal quote, unquote, wedge issue for future political campaigns. is it because the treaty is such a good devicive political

issue. you made some of the claim about the treaty as you made. is it why you stated the treaty proponent have sort of a soviet agenda in your organization has made some what many of us say outrageous claim that the u.n. will determine how many parking spots are at american churches? >> senator, the wedge issue comment was -- i believe that this treaty would be the first in a line of human rights treaty that would be becoming before the treaty. the right of the child senator mccain, misspoke, i'm sure earlier. we have not ratified that treaty. and so i think that would be becoming -- all form of descrimghts against women. that would be coming after that.

you have hypothetical questions and tend argue that way in a lot of it. that's what i was doing there. when there's no definition of disability and you give this organization the ability to define this ability. anything is possible. i was trying to make an extreme case to show that anything is possible. >> i agree. i agree with you that you were trying to make an extreme case. by the way, on the wedge issue you weren't talking about a whole host of other treaty. you were talking about this treaty. the story of the washington gridlock and the "boston globe" by author michael. and on the question of the parking lot reference, would you yourself say is a extreme example. your organization or an organization you're affiliated with, parental rights. reason number two, pretty much at the stop. the top of the senate the number of handicap spaced require for parking at your business,

private school, our house or work will be established bit u.n. and not the local government. i would like that submit the article for the record. without objection. that's why, you know, i can understand when a state likes that is made ting undermines the credibility of nature of one could take the treaty. let me ask you something else, article 7 the ability treaty it states that in all actions concerning children with disabilities. the best -- should be a primary consideration. i think it seems like annan controversial statement to me. can you i've read your testimony. can you tell me one example the interest where a child with

disability shouldn't be a primary consideration. >> yes. the term best interest is a legal term of part. means that the government gets to substitute its judgment for that of the parent. and so in -- >> that is your interpretation. it is not -- >> that's -- i quoted professor van buren, the leading expercent in the international right of the child. >>let look what the convention state. it said nothing about the state stepping to the shoe of the parent. in fact article 23 describe in details protecting parental right and the right of the extended family to care for and make decisions for children with disability. i'm dumbfounded how you can make a noncontroversial statement and twist it in to something rather sinister. >> senator, the treaty -- the i cctv r protect drieght --

drieghtly. that language is missing in this treaty. if that language was in this treaty we would be in a different position. that's the historical practice. there's no direct statement about parents right in education in the treaty. and the best -- is a legal term of art has been used bit german high court to take children away from them if they -- >> it's not the german high court. this is the united states of america and the only high court i care about is the supreme court of the united states. let me ask you finally. you quoted -- for the argument and the legal argument. i appreciate you have an llm from london, as i understand from a distance learning course. as a matter of -- [inaudible] there are no comments befored

committee of approval or disapproval. >> as a matter of law the court have no authority ignore reservation understanding and declaration. as a matter of fact some of the most conservative lawyer, professor courtesy bradley concluded, quote, in sum since the early day of the nation, the president and senate have attached a variety of conditions to their consent to treaty. no court has ever invalue validated these conditions. and finally when you quote the professor, you know, you seem to somehow suggest that he would not have supported ratifying this treaty. >> i think he would support ratification. >> the number of internationalists would support it. they think it's good that we submit the united states to the supervision of the international

community. i adopt. at least agree on the operation of international law. i don't disagree one bit the professor on how he sees international law in operation. i think it's part of the brand we should be exporting. and i agree that. that's why the you argue it creates obligations others do not see. and then you suggest that the united states must follow your interpretation in term of ratifying the treaty. i think that we have a fundamental disagreement here is that under the constitution of the president and the senate determine our obligation under international streety and the understanding and declaration of advice or consent are what binding. and i'm going to ask unanimous consent to knacked legal memo prepared on the issue who set

the record straight on the power . i close on the professor. he would have recognized that just because the united states law is adequate to comply with the treaty is not a good reason not to ratify. he would have supported the treaty, in my view, because it advances human rights and make the full participate in the treaty. the fact is that the human rights institute which he founded and the human rights first organization on which he served on the board of directors support the treaty. we have a fundamental disagreement by what in fact will be our obligations and what will be the reach. i believe that home coolers will be absolutely fine and i know that, you know, there's money raised on the issue. and, you know, maybe it's a wedge issue. it's not going affect home coolers. i think there's broad support for home coolers. >> thank you.

thank you for convening the hearing. iproud to have the opportunity to work you and others. abroad especially our wounded veterans. promoting the right of disabled persons has historically garnered the support of broad range of americans. i remain hopeful they can come together to protect human rights and dignity in this congress. last year we missed a great opportunity ratify the treaty.

it's my hope shared by many meshes is evidenced here today we don't make the same mistake again. we cannot afford to miss the opportunity. i encourage my colleagues to participate actively in the hearings and join those of us who might vote again to ratify it it. if i might, first, thank you for your service and your remarkable and inspiring story of perseverance, engagement, and continued service to our country. i'm glad to be able to be here for your testimony earlier. in your view, how has america's failure to ratify the treaty impacted our leadership on disability issues globally? >> thank you, senator. i found out myself why traveled to asia earlier this year. where i went to talk to disability rights group. one of the first asked on the ranch and file post in the room. america didn't ratify to got

convention. sitting in the room as a -- i had nothing to say except we're going work on it and try to ratify it soon. this is our democracy works. i felt it firsthand. i was in a room full of people who looked to me to talk about ada and the benefit and how it allows me to recover from my injuries and live the life i live and serve my nation. i couldn't do that with authority because the very, you know, one of the first questions i got asked you are going ratify it? i had egg on my face. and we're going lead the world. it's aka is so many americans. we have the olympics coming up. the para 0 olympian -- who are para olympian. because of them, we are really

elevating around the world. anywhere there's a para limp pick. they must make the venue wheelchair ada assessable. because of the participation of our veteran i will be able to see the great wall of china which was never assessable before. the way we touch the world is great. we should be at the head of the table and we're not. thank you your active work in supporting this. what are some of the positive result in the countrieses that ratified so far and made notable progress in promoting seability to quality and establishing disability standards. the congresswoman folk one concrete example. more broadly in the many other countries that ratified. what difference has it made?

it's probably difficult to quality -- quantify at the early teenage. you've heard today many number of people evidence of the change and the prospect for change that clearly will go from our leadership role, but i think a good would be to cat log the issues that were raced. i don't have any particular insight in to this. but i think you have able staff perhaps put together a compilation of the changes. i would say with come poppings it will show a mightily impressive record. it's early in the game, yet, before you -- if you use that for judgment.

i would be greatly surprised if there weren't some marvelous stories that are available to share with the public. >> a last question. of it just in the last exchange by mr. faris were we to ratify the treaty we would be submitting the united to the super vision of the international community. does that strike you an accurate characterization on american and american sovereignty we would be submitting to the super vision of the international? i heard the claim made before, and searched the record for any indication that either intended or possible given the current posture of the dlik on the convention in the body. no, i don't think that's a realistic assessment. it's a little bit of an alarmist and perhaps good propaganda.

this is not a country that is going submit to any worldwide body. we have shown the independence in number of area. why we choose to roll over on an issue where we have such a leadership role established already is unthinkable. >> thank you. in concluding in your view would be the surprising -- global community or in fact lead and demonstrating our commitment? >> i think the characterization we would be submitting towers a super vision of the united nations or the world community would be an overstatement. the committee doesn't have an legal authority to -- to federal law. and provided there's a appropriate package. i think that we would be in a position to say that congress and the united states continues to enjoy the ability to decide what federal laws .

>> the panelist who testified earlier. everyone else who testified today. thank you very much. >> senator corker. >> they're, mr. chairman. i appreciate you letting me ask a few more questions. congresswoman duckworth, i appreciate your inspiration. and your comment. i think one of the reasons we are all concerned about the legality in it. i don't think there's anybody on the committee that doesn't appreciate deeply the thrurs of the effort. it's we actually -- that's not the case. and i know general mentioned that we're a country of a rule of law. i think it seems to anyway all of the advocates for this treaty would agree that delving them and getting them right so we don't end up having unintended consequences. is that correct? >> absolutely. i think they are the key the

final version of what is voted on. they are going spell out, if done correctly, the explicit guidelines that will endure long past the debate that goes on in this body. >> and mr. meyers. it seems to me you have offered some constructive comments relative to some of the changes that may be made. we love to work with you to try to develop and address some of the issues that were brought up. i know, we talked about the committee. it's my understand we would be have a representative on the committee. they rotate and have somebody on the front end. over time this committee can do some things to establish custom mare international law. i guess is there a way, in your opinion to inoculate ourselves from the evolution that can occur with the committees over time. 30, 40 years.

through the ruts that will protect us from international law that might be developed by the committee? the other thing. this is the practice of the state department is to monitor the activity of the committee and to make sure we do object. which -- because the committee sort of a

living orgnism some people said, look, the ada standard are at the goal standards today but as the committee evolving over time, it could well be that other laws have to be developed in the country. but you believe what you said is that customer international law so could inoculate ourselves fully from the evolution. and i see proponent of the treaty shaking their heads up-and-down. it would not be objectionable general from your standpoint to the advocate. it seems to me as mentioned earlier on that one body cannot make rules to find the successor in the legislature. so there's going to be a call for oversight. the disability under the ada has been changed. it's only been in effect listen 25 year.

experience is a good mentor in that respect. that's what we have the congress and the court and not some ultimate executive branch decision that will be made. >> doctor, it seemed to me that you agreed that would stronger ruts that the issue that you are concerned about could be dealt with; is that correct? >> well, i have to say i'm not optimistic we can be fully inoculated from the international law evolving. it doesn't involve us. something that is international opinion. so international law evolves in internationally. through other decisions. we could not inoculate ourselves from what the world opinion is. we can make a reservation or understanding on this. i know, senator rubio had a strong amendment the last time around that got watered down.

i think that would be a minimum to try to protect ourselves from 25a, you know, from the dreet -- treaty. i'm not optimistic that a reservation could it. because the committee is ignoring the reservation. they're already telling countries to remove it. if we think we are getting pressure now to ratify. wait until we have to go every four years before the committee. we will get pressure on every single one. do you think anybody -- >> without a committee? >> forgive me. i wasn't clear. as far as authority, there are a lot of folks who have spoken today we are going to lose credibility, mutt gait credibility all together if we don't ratify. we'll be out of the table. thing is is excessive. we will maintain.

they ratified without us. spain has passed a comprehensive law. african nations are making real differences now in embracing it. they ratified it. even without it ratifying. i hear when i'm at the u.n. from delegates who tell me you are the leaders on this. we understand that you haven't ratified. you are still the leader. so, again, i think that if we go down this path and go to reservations if we're already afraid by ratifying we have gone too far as far as i'm concerned. we have the authority, the credibility, and the leadership to make a difference around the world. >> would you work constructively with mr. meyer and others to do what we can to try to get to a place where these ruts alleviate most of the concern that you have? i know you still have a concern about international law? >> i would be happy to work with them. >> if i could, for a final question.

mr. ferries, seemed to strongly disagree with mr. meyer as to whether the issues he's concerned about can be addressed through us. i would like for you, if you would, to address it one more time, mr. ferris. >> if you would, mr. meyer, respond to that. >> senator, i think it's possible -- address my concerns. but i think it would be illegal under the term of the treaty. because contrary to the object are illegal. i think that i think the better view if we adopt a treaty with a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty we're not according to the treaty. it's no the that --

are whole ratification and undertaking and pretending to undertake the obligation and not really doing so. i don't think that that satisfy my arguments would be legal for that reason. with this administration on the -- case was interpretation of international treaty law on the child standards. the same term of art we are concerned about here. we don't trust this. given the fact we are being mistreated by this administration right now on immigration issue on this very term of art in the law. more over, this is the same administration that told us if you want to keep your insurance policy, you can.

and so trusting the source of the promises is not at the high level right now. >> so if you would respond to that, mr. meyer. i appreciate it. >> thank you, senator. first, i think to be clear. no u.s. court is going to disregard a rut. regardless of whether or not it's contrary to the object of the purpose of the treaty. consistent with the professors findings. i'm aware of no instance which a federal court i think -- ignored it. the way which the objective purpose rule comes in to play. mostly another party might object that a are elevation that the united states made is contrary to the object and purpose of the convention. the united states -- there's no way for the procedure that the united states can end up bound by anything to which we have not consented. by which, i mean, it's not possible by for the virtue of some party objecting that the reservation will be struck and

the united states will be bound by the treaty without the reservation. either the treaty simply would be deemed not apply or likely answered and everybody understand the united states enter the reservation. it's also possible that the committee at some point might opine that the reservation of the united states made was contrary to the objective purpose of the treaty. that would be nonbinding. >> so the country that has gold standard, enadvocate like for us to play a role throughout the world and helping develop that goal standard around the world. you're saying we develop in our opinion, absolutely -- inoculate us from any kind of issue outside the domestic law. and it struck down as being

something that contrary to the treaty and it fall on our standpoint. we're not bound to other portion of the treaty. at one point you made? >> that's correct. the only thing i would add there's no court that have jurisdiction to strike down a reservation. the treaty doesn't submit to the jurisdiction of the international court of justice. and the committee doesn't have the authority to formally strike down a reservation. and i guess the advocate, one of the advocate witness, mr. general. you would say we would be better off with adhering and taking up this treaty and being bound by the treaty that did the very thing. then that would be acceptable to you as having a kind of disclaimers relative to our own internal and domestic. >> i don't think there's really any choice. because what we have --

historically in the country is a commitment to assure together world's people that benefits and advances that we have made in our own country. i don't see disability rights to which there's obvious strong commitment in the country going back to and proceeding the america american with disability act is any different from the other importance. s we have fought and died for over the years. i think that clearly any strategy designed to gut or ratification of the treaty would be unacceptable at the same time i think it's entirely plausible to draft them that are satisfactory to most reasonable people in looking at what the problem is. why. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i thank you as witnesses for your time.

>> thank you, senator. one final comment. and since we're developing a record here. i can't let go the different view -- the con stance reference to the columbia case. i'm disappointed that you use it in that way. with reference to, you know, the assertion that columbia's high court overturned protection of the unborn invoking the nonbinding comment as it relates to this treaty. the fact of the matter is the it has nothing do with the disability treat write. it's a 2006 case. it didn't ratify for another five years after the decision. the columbia case site a different convention. a treaty to which columbia had no reservation. no understanding.

no declaration. by a contrast our ratification should -- would be with the declaration of the treaty is not self-executing. and the u.s. supreme court up-- we need to be clear about the assertion that we make when we are creating a record. i felt the responsibility to make that clear. let me thank all of the witnesses. i thank all of the witnesses for their testimony. i appreciate all the members who have attended and the thoughtfulness for which they approached the issue. i think that i appreciate and

thank those who have bear -- outside the traditional hearing room. we appreciate your fore banners and watching democratic process and the overflow room. the record will be open until the close of business on thursday with the thank of the committee to all of you. the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] administrator for the medicaid and medicare services said the agency was -- for the health care.gov website next week. she testified for the second time in two weeks about the health care law rollout. you can see the event in the entire tiny time at c-span.org.

>> at the end of the month one or two things will be true. either the website is going to be working smoothly for the vast majority of the users or it won't. and it's those cases the administration is going have to take quick action to ensure that individuals across the country are being treated fairly. so i'm sure people are planning for this at the end of the month. what -- what set the plan since it fails. if it works, that individuals will just have two weeks to really shop and a plan that take effect on january 1st. is the administration planning an education and outreach strategy to match this tech surge that is currently underway and if the site is not -- then what steps is the administration going take including delaying penalty for not buying the insurance and

then what are they going do to help individuals to be sure there's not going to be a gap in their insurance coverage? >> yes. there is a -- public campaign that will match. january, february, and march. there are no plans to delay individual mandate. >> so what if the site is not working? >> the site will be working now. what we're doing now is -- are enough people able to get on the site? >> yes. >> do you have numbers? >> so i said earlier we have over 700,000 that completed application. we'll have enoughs --

okay. i have called for the open enrollment period for not buying insurance for two months to make up for time for the lost time it's taken to get the site up and working. i think that's going to be a continued to be an issue. country of the things i was concerned about in reading the material was the contract to award the site. that the -- for the management. was it really awarded to companies that had been on an ip contract back in '07? >> yeah. not open to the other companies. which back in 2007 there were a list of i.t. venders that do this kind of work. but a lot has changed since '07

to 2011 or 2012. >> i think this is more the process things are current -- yes. so you're saying it was back in -- if you were want on that contract in '07, would you not be eligible to bid? >> yes. that's correct. you would not be eligible. the process was completed in 2007. it's been used for i.t. projects at igms. it's a series of contractors who have been prescreened. preanded. -- prequalified. they still go through a competitive bid process. it's limited to the individuals that qualified in 2007. >> the tech surge that just started recently are those companies would they have been on that '07 qualifying contractors? >> i would have to look at the individuals inside the -- certainly some of the contractors you have seen on the list are common in the i.t. space. it would not unusual.

>> okay. >> on september 30th, the night before the site was set to launch what were your expectations for the launch day? >> it's a great question. my first expectations sexual appeals were going live shortly after midnight. we doing a soft launch at midnight. we pretty much promoted it would go live 8:00 a.m. the morning of october 1st. we went live shortly after midnight. we had tremendous interest even during the night. and my expectations was that site would work. it's a complicated website. i think we knew all along it would have bugs that have to be handled. we knew along we had to pull certainly functionality out in order to spend more time concentrating on the application

process. those are the ones we talked about publicly. what i expected were a site that worked some issues. what was saw as more volume we anticipated. we anticipated pretty high volume. then we ran to the issue of the establishment of the e-mail account. we had to problem solve for that. -- it seemed that the information i have been reading was there was warning before the site was to open and there was a lot of concern that testing had not been done. that i think -- and hind site now a lot of people are saying why didn't the administration and cms give more forewarning about the site not living up to the expectations that was being called for and

many people understood it would be up and running and being able to access it quite easily? >> i would say that the testing -- again, around the hub was complete. i think the testing that had not been finished was testing in a live environment with real individuals which we couldn't do until last october 1. in our annalist an mod -- security checks. so we were comfortable and did not have any high-risk recommendation in any of those component. we could not do the live tend end testing until october 1 when we signed up. we did case testing friar that. >> thank you very much. >> there's more about the problem with the rollout of the health care law wednesday.

coming up on c-span2 deafen secretary chuck hagel discuss the effect of budget cut on the military. ♪ what is the most important issue congress should consider in 2014? that's the question for middle and high school students in c-span student cam video competition. make a five to seven minute documentary that shows varying point of view, and includes c-span video for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. and this year we have cobl -- doubled the number of winners and total prizes. entries must be in by january

20, 2014. need more information? go studentcam.org. defense secretary chuck hagel wandered about the automatic budget cuts. his remarks are 35 minutes. >> if you have seen the organizational chart of the

department of defense, you might have noticed it's a little bit different from most corporate or business arrangements. that tend to put people in boxes. what you'll notice about the pentagon is that the box at the very top has two people. not one but two people in the same box. it's the secretary of defense and the deputy secretary defense. john and i each had the pleasure of working inside that box. not as a secretary but deputy. we can tell you there's downside to the arrangement. since the secretary chooses who gets what assignments, you can gets who debts -- gets to visit with foreign leaders and who gets to go to guantanamo. [laughter] having watched firsthand from the closest possible position inside the box with the secretary of defense, i can tell you the secretary hagel has one of the toughest jobs in the

world. the job entails an extraordinary range of responsibility and demands a unique combination of personal qualities. when you consider secretary hagel's experience enachievement. his résume reads like he's prepare forked the job for his entire life. his un-- he enlisted in the army and served two tours of duty as a squad leader in vietnam. earning two purple hearts. secretary hagel is a highly successful businessman who understands a financial and organizational complexity of the job. he's a former senator equipped to deal with the political realty. hef involved in television so he's ready for the public challenge. and as former deputy of the veteran's administration, he's demonstrated the compassion by fighting to elevate awareness of

agent orange and the damage it did to some of our troops. in a short time in office he demonstrated all of these qualities and more. proving that he is the right man for the job. ladies and gentlemen, it's my honor to present you a true american patriot, the 24th secretary of defense. secretary chuck hagel. [applause] >> bill, thank you. to my friend john emry, thank you. thank you each for what you have done for our country and what you continue do. and congratulations on this spectacular new building, john. it's not only a remarkable achievement, but it is a

testament to this institution and what it is minute for so many years to this country as it has contributed to the shaping and the molding and the outcomes of our policies in the world. you continue to do that. to your board and your leaders, everyone associated with csis, i congratulate you and thank you for what you do and what you continue to do. i want to -- especially recognize sam dunn for his leadership. i know, he was not exactly a bystander in this effort and continues to be rather engaged. he's one of the unique leaders that our country produces. it seems at the right time. he is many years one of the real

anchors of our national security policy and one of the leader of our country. i know, what he has meant to csis, and particularly appreciated his risking his reputation in helping introduce me at my conformation hearing. so i noticed he quickly escaped after that. ..

>> it continues a tradition going back to 1962 when the great thinkers were brought together like jim kissinger and henries pleasanter and others like that as well. their goal was to look 10 years into the future and to find the political and military and economic strategies that would help america ultimately determine how to use power in

all its forms to influence the actions of adversaries or would-be aggressors, as well as friends and allies. that is the essence of strategy. in this kind of long-term perspective, it is always needed and will always be required. but it is especially relevant today as we try to manage of a volatile and rapidly changing world, particularly when geopolitical gridlock and budget uncertainty here in our home continue to undermine the strategies necessary to protect america's interests and enhance its future. and i would like to take this opportunity this morning to look out across the strategic landscape and share a few perspectives are shifting and long-term national security challenges and the u.s. military

is role in addressing these challenges and what this means for the department of defense going forward. as we all know america's challenges are far more dispersed and far more complex than the single a single defining threat that we faced in 1962. they are also different than they were in 2002 when our nation was reeling from the most devastating terrorist attack in our history were even a few years ago when 100,000 u.s. troops were on the ground in iraq and tens of thousands of troops were on their way to afghanistan. with the end of the iraq war winding down with a combat mission in afghanistan, president obama has been moving the nation off of a perpetual war friend, one which america's priorities and policies and relationships around the world were dominated by the response to 9/11. and as the united states make

this transition with what comes after the post-9/11 era, we are only beginning to see the dramatic shifts underway that will define our future and shape our interactions in the world. and require our national security institutions to adjust and to adapt and this is the history of mankind. adaptation and adjustment. chief among these 21st century trends are shifting geopolitical centers trends and this reflects economic power and sweeping demographic change. china and india and brazil and indonesia are all helping to reshape the global economy and regional powers like turkey and asserting greater independence from traditional allies and patriots. the asia pacific region has taken on an even greater prominence in global politics and commerce and security and as

latin america developed and strengthened, they will be important leaders in helping to build a secure and prosperous 21st century world. terrorist or criminal networks and nonstate actors are all playing a role in defining the international system. new structures of governance and power are emerging as the world's population becomes more urbanized than mobile and technologically advanced. bringing the standards and expectations as they develop. technology are the 21st century tools of education to bring people closer together, closer than any other time in history the history of man, helping to wink aspirations and their grievances. my friend, one of america's premier geopolitical thinkers in this institution has called this phenomenon a global political

awakening. nowhere is this more evident than in the historic turmoil that is embroiling the middle east, not since the decade after world war ii has mankind witnessed such a realignment of justice and challenges. history shows that these are not always easy to perceive, former secretary of state account of his own experience earning another defining time in history when he said that only slowly that it down upon us that we have inherited this from the 19th century it was gone and that the struggle to replace it would be directed into bitterly opposed an irreconcilable power centers. even as we begin to see dramatic shifts, we know that the rapid pace of change will only accelerate as the world undergoes a historic generational shift, more than 40% of the world 7 billion people today are under the age

of 25. 90% of them live outside of the united states and europe. particularly turbulent regions like the middle east will continue to experience this as their populations increase and race far ahead of the educational and employment opportunities that must match them. they will present more uncertainty and risk and peace and prosperity and stability as we confront an array of 21st century challenges and the challenge of terrorism has evolved, as it has metastasized since 9/11. this has required and demands partners and allies with counterterrorism efforts and many share a common thread, regardless of state say differences or political ideologies. and destructive technologies

that were once a product of theirs are being sought by nonstate actors as well. this will require our continued investment in cutting edge defense of space inside the technologies and capabilities, like missile defense, as well as offense of technologies and capabilities to deter aggressors and respond if we must. if it's a gated cyberattacks have a potential of inflicting damage on national world of economies are critical of the structure and our adversaries will try to use this to frustrate our traditional military advantages in our power, striking at the underpinning strength of a nation and our economy. this will require that we continued to pace of higher priorities on these capabilities. meanwhile, the national and transnational natural disasters and the proliferation of mass destruction weapons all spread these realities regions in the world.

regional tensions in asia pacific and the middle east and elsewhere continue to have the potential to erupt into a larger scale of conflicts trying in the u.s. and china and russia. some of the most complex and challenging threats remain from and nontransparent and heavily armed nation states like iran and north korea. we continue to adapt the present and emerging threats from nonstate groups and terrorists and criminal networks and from within weeks states and as john hammer has said, statehood can hide dangers lurking beneath, and all of these challenges will be with us for the foreseeable future and there's not a short-term solution to these 21st century threats and problems. we must manage through these short-term realities as we engage these complex problems, staying focused on our long-term

interests and long-term objectives and outcomes. imperfect outcomes may be the best we can expect and working our way toward the higher ground of possible solutions and resolutions and leveraging all aspects of power, we must multiply and enhance our efforts while working through coalitions of common interests. this is our future, just as we have done since world war ii and it not be made more essential than ever before. while these challenges are not america's responsibility alone, they will demand america's continued global leadership and engagement and no other nation has the will and the power and the capacity and capability in the network of alliances to lead the international community in addressing this. however, sustaining her leadership will depend not only on the extent of our great power

but an appreciation of its limits. and a wise deployment of our influence and we must not fall prey to the false nation of american decline. that is a false choice that is far too simple an explanation and we must remain the only global leader. however, the insidious disease can undo america's great strength and we also must not fall prey to hubris. national and personal anxieties about change will continue to dominate much of our public debate. these must be placed on a broader context, particularly because many of the challenges facing us are political and not structural. we remain the world's preeminent military, economic and diplomatic power, and even as we deal with the budgetary or

constraints of defense spending, the united states will continue to represent nearly 40% of global defense expenditures and most of the world's other leading military powers are america's close allies. but what has always distinguished the united states is not simply the existence of our great power, but rather it is the way in which we have used our power for the purpose of trying to make a better world. we have made mistakes and we will continue to make mistakes. but we cannot allow the overhanging threat of future miscalculations and mistakes to paralyze or intimidate our will and our necessary decision-making today and in the 21st century, the united states must continue to be a force for an important symbol of humanity and freedom and progress. for all mankind. we must also make a better effort to understand how the

world sees us and why. we must listen more and we must listen more. after more than a decade of controversial costly and at times open-ended war, america is redefining its role in the world. at the same time, more americans including elected officials are growing skeptical about our country's foreign engagements and responsibilities. but only looking inward is just as deadly as a trap as hubris and we must avoid both in pursuing a successful foreign policy in the 21st century. america's role in the world should reflect hope and promise of our country and the possibilities for all mankind, tempered with the wisdom that has been the hallmark of our national character. that means pursuing a principal and engaged realism that has employed economic and security

tools, as well as our values. to advance our security and as we look out across the strategic landscape, the united states military remains an essential tool of american power and foreign policy. but the one that must be used wisely and precisely and judiciously and most of the press and security challenges i describe today have important diplomatic and national and global and economic and cultural components. and they cannot and will not be resolved by only military strength. as we go forward into an unpredictable world, we need to place an emphasis on art instruments of power while adapting while adapting the military so that it remains strong and capable, second to none, and relevant in the face of threats markedly different from what she did during the cold war and over the past two decades.

america's power will always be critical with global progress. and our success ultimately depends not only on one instrument of power but all of our instruments of power. working together. and it depends not only how well we've maintained all of our instruments of power, but how well we balanced and integrated with each other and leaders and strategists have been arguing for this kind of shift for several years. in 2007, i was honored to serve on the csi as commission and the commission was led by john hanley and a call for developing an integrated strategy that is resource base and a toolkit to achieve american objectives trying hard and soft power.

and this was echoed soon after by bob gates spoke on this topic here at csi is in early 2008. and we still have a long world to go and president obama has resolved to take military action to respond to the use of chemical weapons to help get a diplomacy with russia, which we pursue and that led to a u.n. security council resolution and the involvement of the working to remove the destruction of chemical weapons. this includes removing one of the largest stockpiles in the world. not only the military pressure,

but it is also developing a technology that may very well be used to destroy his chemical weapons. we may have another possibility with iran as well. where we are engaging in a diplomatic path of preventing iran from obtaining a weapon. the united states is clear about the challenges and uncertainties that lie ahead in the need for iran to demonstrate the seriousness of its actions. we will maintain a strong and ready military presence in the persian gulf and the broader middle east to deter these destabilizing activities and work with them protect our allies in the multidimensional challenges confronting us with iran and syria are but only two pieces of the global complexities we will continue to face in the 21st century. in both cases, our military power has been an important part of our work to fund these

diplomatic resolutions. resolutions for international problems. we recognize that there is a risk in all of this, but we don't live in a risk-free world and we never have. and we never will. we must work to find effective solutions to problems in the military force must always remain an option and it should always be an option of last resort. the military should always maintain a leading role and an example of the balance we are seeking with renewed engagement in the asia-pacific region, america's military power plays a destabilizing -- stabilizing role in the region. helping to advance security and stability and prosperity for our commitments to our allies and our partnerships.

and with them, they build new capabilities. the department of defense is not in the lead for the rebalance of the asia-pacific. it is an effort that also consists of important diplomatic and trade and cultural initiatives in all of these areas remain a top priority as we continue to implement the strategy. going forward, the united states must use military strength is a support and component of a comprehensive strategy to protect and advance american interests in the 21st century. this requires striking a careful balance between all elements of power, just as overdependence on the military carries with it risks and consequences. letting our military strength to invite disaster. the united states must sustain a

kind of hard military power that gives her diplomacy strength and assures our allies around the world and deters our adversaries. we must continue to have a military of unmatched fighting power and we must be prepared to respond to confrontation and crisis with the profoundly volatile world, working closely with our allies and our partners. the united states military has proved to geopolitical alignments. even in the face of reduced budgets and new challenges and defense institutions must be reshaped to assure the military's continuing capacity capability and readiness. that includes a continued focus for our allies and our partners and working closely with them and through alliances.

today we face the budget crisis with a steep abrupt cut of sequestration and what will cause as far as an unnecessary strategic and unsound dangerous declaration to capabilities. as you all know, the department is facing sequester level cuts in the order of $500 billion over 10 years and this is in addition to the 10 year $487 billion reduction in the budget that is already underway. and these cuts are too fast and too much and too abrupt and too irresponsible. the dod took a 37 billion-dollar sequester cut during the pastor and we could be forced to absorb this sequester cut this fiscal year and we are looking at nearly $1 billion in dod cuts over the ten-year period.

unless there is a new budget agreement. we are currently operating under no budget, but under continued resolution which continues to resent present dod with one of its most difficult challenges, uncertainty. dod cannot responsibly and efficiently and effectively plan and strategize and implement national security policies with this cloud of uncertainty continuing to hang over it. it forces us into a very bad set of decisions. congress must act to buy the department time and flexibility to implement spending reductions in a more strategic and we do not have the option to assume that something will change and leaders across the department will continue to give their best clear eyed assessment to america's elected leaders about sequestration military readiness and morale and capabilities.

but we also must prepare the force for whatever lies ahead. with a clear appreciation of the vital responsibility of protecting this nation. i taught institutional priority has been to help lead the department of defense and not only responding to these fiscal and strategic challenges, but to shape our strategic policy options to our advantage and to the extent that we can, controlling our own destiny. during my first week in office i directed a strategic choice of management review, which over the course of several months identified options for reshaping our force and institutions in the face of difficult budget situations. this is part of the military capabilities that will be required if sequester level cuts persist. but it also identified opportunities to make changes and reforms and above all, they

underscore the reality of the dod that still possesses resources and options. we will need to more efficiently match them and match our resources with our most important security requirements and we can do things better and we must do things better and we will. to that end since the strategic review was completed, leaders across the dod has been working on a longer-term budget strategy. particularly through the department quadrennial defense review. a realignment of resources across this and it will require significant change across every aspect of our defense enterprise. i have identified six areas of focus for our budget and strategic planning efforts going

forward. and working closely with the service secretaries and service chiefs and combatant commanders in dod leaders and the six priorities will help determine the shape of our defense institutions for years to come. first we will continue to focus on institutional reform. and coming out of more than a decade of war and budget growth, there's a clear opportunity and the need to reform and reshape our entire defense enterprise, including paring back the largest back-office, including a 20% reduction that we announced across the board beginning with the office of the secretary of defense. our goal is not only to direct more of our resources but military capabilities and readiness and to make organizations flatter and more responsive to the needs of our men and women in uniform. second, we will reevaluate our militaries planning construct

and how the military should organize and train and equip our forces and i would ask our leaders to take a very close look at these assumptions. questions, which will also be reevaluated as part of this. the goal is to ensure the better reflection of our goals in the evolving capacity of our allies and real-world threats in the new military capabilities that resign with our force and in the hands of our potential adversaries and we must make sure that contingency scenarios drive force the structure decisions and not the other way around. the third priority will be preparing for a prolonged military readiness challenge and the managing readiness of sequestration is rightly

protected with deploying forces to make sure that no one goes into harms way unprepared. that is our highest responsibility of our forces and already we have seen the readiness of the units suffer, as training curtailed and flying hours reduced and shift snobs beaming and exercises not going for them being canceled. the strategic choices show us that the persistence of sequester level cuts can lead to a readiness level crisis and unless something changes, we have to think urgently and creatively about how to avoid that outcome. because we are consuming our future readiness now. we may have to accept the reality that not every unit will be at maximum readiness. and some kind of a system is inevitable. this carries the risk that the president of the united states would have fewer options to fill

our nation's security objectives and a fourth priority will be protecting the emerging military capabilities, especially space and cyber, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance as well. and this includes seeking to frustrate our advantages, and it will be important to maintain our decisive technological edge. this has always been the hallmark of our armed forces even as war has remained. and it will remain a fundamentally human endeavor. and arctic priority is balance. the mix between this and active and reserve forces and

home-based forces and conventional and unconventional capabilities. in some cases, we will make a shift, for example by prioritizing a smaller force with older equipment. also a globally active garrison force and we will look to the reserve component tempered by the experience of ground forces that cannot be part of this, even in the early stages. for existing, by trying to control this compensation policy. it may be the most difficult and without serious attempts to

achieve savings in this area, that achieves roughly half of the dod budget, we risk becoming an unbalanced force. limited readiness and capability , we will have to make hard choices in this area in order to ensure that this is sustainable for the 21st century. ..

>> it's people who prosper and suffer. when a in addition commits men and women to war, it is people who make the decision to go to war. it is people who fight and die in war. i began my discussion today by talking about the importance of long term thinking. america's future is always dependent on the balance of strategic thinking, decisive actions, and belief in our purpose. perhaps no one more em builded that purpose than president dwight d. eisenhower. it's appropriate to end my thoughts this morning with app excerpt from his farewell address in 1961 th