to does his support for the treaty. i know, that the secretary changed his schedule to be with us today. he's a keynote speaker at the disability-related event this evening in new york. we'll be excusing him around 4:30 or so do so. secretary, we're pleased for joining us. thank you for rearranging your schedule today. i will leave congresswoman duckworth to be recognized by senator dire bin. someone who has done a tremendous amount of work on the cannot of veteran's affairs and personal testimony about her personal experience as a wounded warrior is invaluable to the committee. i want to ask former attorney general who is here to discuss the practical importance of ratification, and let me also recognize his wife, jenny, who

is accomplished in the field of disability advocacy. we appreciate you being here as well. let me ask dr. susan from the catholic family and human rights institute. professor timothy meyer, the assistant professor school of law. and michael faris to join us as well as they offer their views on the treaty. thank you, all. let me turn to senator occur bib. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm honored that two of the witnesses are from illinois and especially honored in addition to saying a word about our colleague, mark kirk, to say a word about tammy duck wort. it's interesting how i came to meet. i invited her to be -- she came in the wheelchair. i didn't realize it was nine or ten weeks after he had been shot down serving in the army national guard and co-piloting a

black hawk helicopter in baghdad. she lost both of her legs. there was a question about one of her arms. she came with a big smile on her face and full dress uniform with her husband, a national officer pressuring the wheelchair behind her. that's when we came to meet. it's an incredible story. from the helicopter incident and the crash that followed. she has lead such an amazing and inspiring life since. tomorrow she celebrates she worked so hard for so many people and so many verns and people with disabilities and honored to count her as a friend and glad she can join us today. >> u thank you very much.

thank you for joining us. as i said, we'll ask you to limit your remarks to about five minutes. your full statement will be included in the record. we'll start with secretary rich. mr. speaker, we'll start with congresswoman duckworth. >> i never argue with a secretary. >> same here. >> especially when his testimony is long my views. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak today. i believe ratification nation's global leadership role. we set the gold standard in our lifelong commitment to the disabled veterans. we have what should be the gold standard in disability access. yet our legitimacy to lead other nations is weakened because we

have not yet ratified the crpd. dignity and respect they deserve. the passage of the ada showed a united america. republicans and democrats standing up together for the right of disabled persons. america's leadership inspired many around the world to seek justice and fairness for disability communities in their own countries. unfortunately, our laws do not follow servicemembers and veterans when they are outside u.s. borders. when they travel abroad they are often jilted by leaving our nation that does everything in the power to support our wounded warriors. i traveled to asia earlier this year. i saw firsthand how even countries are moving forward economically are not keeping pace with the necessary protections for disabled

persons. for example, disabilities groups they met with told me about the challenges they face in trying to make public buses wheelchair assessable. it's a sad fact that in many countries around the world that disabled are hidden, committed to be an embarrassment, and not afforded the accommodation they need to lead productive lives. nopes surprising when disabled americans travel abroad. lose the ability to set an example when traveling overseas. as one veteran who ventures around the world climbing the tallest peak put it. climbing the mountain is not the challenge. getting there is.

many wounded warriors are returning to abilityive duty service. they told not be limited by their disability as to where and how they can leave their impact on the world. we do want to travel, work, and yes serve abroad. our service abroad will be limited if we do not start thinking globally about seability and how the u.s. can have an impact now on the issue. the generous benefit provided by the post 9/11 g.i. bill that many on the committee supported have given almost million iraq and afghanistan veteran the opportunity to further their education. many of these veterans are disabled and will be unabled to enhance education with study abroad opportunities because of a lack of disability access overseas. seability abroad also impacts current servicemembers. for those that have a child or family member with a disability, the lack of access in the country of their duty station can mean limited opportunities

for their children or employment for their spouses. these servicemembers may have to face a very difficult choice between a career enhancing tour of duty, or leaving their loved ones behind here in the united states. this unfortunate because the department of defense provides many accommodations for the needs of military families. for example, the dod will pay for home schooling supplies, equipment, and support for servicemembers with families in the exceptional family member program. yet if the servicemember fears stigma from joining the program, they are likely to miss out on the home schooling benefit that might have allowed their children with disabilities to accompany them on an enriching overseas assignment. for all of these reasons, the veterans of foreign war, the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, and the veterans of america support ratifying this bio trite -- treaty. in august i was thrilled to cheer on the american legend when the membership voted -- at the annual convention.

i'm here in opposition to the street --

treaty. there are three reasons i would like to cover in the time i have today. first, despite the claims to the contrary, u.s. ratification of this treaty does impose finding legal obligation on the country and will be the responsibility of the united states to comply with international law. the statements to the contrary have been based primarily on what i call -- in the course of litigation you call naked assertions. we go not hear citations legal authority for the propositions, you don't hear appropriate citations to qualified experts such as lose. he's one of the leading expert in the world on the international response. he said -- in a different context but to the principle -- the united states apparently seeks to ensure that its adherence to a convention will not change or require change in u.s. laws, policy, or practices. even when they fall below international standards.

reservations designed to reject any obligation to rise above existing law and practice or dubious appropriatety. the states generally -- even friends of the united states who objected to the reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose. the united states has said judgment on others but not submit the behavior to international judgment. to many -- [inaudible] is offensive. they are only for other states. no for the united states. professor had it right. this is a treaty a treaty is a law. the emotional and political arguments that are in favor of the treaty no one can disagree with these arguments. but the question is, will the treaty actually have the legal effect that is being proffered by the proponent of the treaty? we don't hear citations to article in the treaty. we don't hear consideration of

the report. the concluding observations by the committee on the right of persons with disability. we don't hear the kind of legal able -- analysis that would be appropriate for analyzing the legal impact of the treaty. i would submit the duty of the committee not to determine the policy issues and the emotional appeals, but to determine what the legal meaning of the treaty is and the legal application in the context both in international law and domestic law of the united states. one of the ways that the proponents misrepresent the nature of the treaty is on the definition of disability. proponents argue that the definition of disability is left blank in the treaty so that each nation can decide for itself what it believes is the correct definition. the committee on the right of person with disability disagrees in the process of issuing general observation and response of that but already issued concluding observations to about

nine countries, argentina, china, hungry, peru, and austria. all were told that the nation's definition of disability was improper under the treaty definition of disability. what is improper about the definition? they follow a medical definition of disability rather than a human rights definition of disability. and the difference in that definition is important because under a human rights definition of disability, according to the committee, a form of disability law that permits -- the situation of a profoundly intellectually disabled adult. parents under the human right model of dainlt would not be allowed to be appointed "the guardian" of the adult intent julie disabled child. instead, would have to be only allowed to be support decision makes rather than substitute decision making.

i cite the record from the crpd committee that said it explicitly. nation that allow guardianship for profoundly digitalled adults that intellectually disabled are in violation of the -- that will be a profound change in american law and if we think we will not have to comply with the treaty standards, they were simply making a fake promise to the rest of the world. we're making a promise by our ratification that we, like all other nations, will obey the requirements of the treaty. turning to the issue of home schooling. i've been criticized by many in the press for -- on the topic. but i've never seen any --

debate constitutional law. i have written the legal analysis and i dare anyone to read my legal analysis and answer it with legal analysis not conjecture and raw assertion. the legal analysis is based upon the failure of the crpd to include the traditional right of parent to direct the upbringing and education of their children found until the i cctv r and the universal declaration of human rights. those provisions did protect the right of parents. the convention on -- began the trend in the wrong direction and followed by the crpd. it supports defines the educational duty and the word parent is not mentioned in the educational provision of article 24 of this treaty. the best interest of the child standard has been applied in international human rights context including banning home schooling in germany, the

highest dmowrt germany is held that home schooling is banned under the best interest of the child standard. european court of humans right upheld the ban. when a family fled to the united states, our administration appealed the successful grant of asylum to the family that i represent now before the united states supreme court and the petition that is pending. and our justice contends that germany is within the right. >> i have allowed you to go a minute and a half over time. >> i'm sorry. my clock isn't working. you're at 7:00, or 8:00 minute. >> thank you, senator. >> secretary ridge. >> [inaudible conversations] if. >> if you put your microphone on. >> thank you. as many of you know, i've had the pleasure of wearing numerous hats in the public service of our country. member of congress, governor in the nation's first secretary of homeland security. first, i want to share with you the story of my first public service role of the united

states infantry staff sergeant. frankly, i had poor hearing when i went in, worse after, and because of age diminished hearing since. technically sis i wear hearing aids i'm disabled veteran. most of the 5.5 million disabled veterans can. and i'm proud to represent their cause as well as my own commitment 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 will no longer face undue burden abroad either. there's no greater example of u.s. leadership than on the frontlines of armed conflict. where servicemembers fight to protect the moral integrity of mankind and the values of equality and liberty. if there's one thing you take away from my testimony today, i hope it is that the united states leadership counts. we have the opportunity to lead

now and to lead well disability treaty. obviously i'm a member. american legion, veterans of foreign war, supporting u.s. ratification. my initial experience with disability began in grade school. one of my dearest friends had a serious disability. we enjoyed her friendship, her smile, we admired her courage. since those early years, my less than think public service career has given me the insight and experience to sit before you as well as well as the chairman of the national organization on disability. i became chairman of nod in 2005 because i believe we have to be more committed as a society to giving people with disabilities the opportunity to establish their own self-worth particularly through employment. there was no question that n. o. d. come out in full support of the treaty which echoes our own constitutional values, u.s.

laws. n. o. d.'s mission to allow people with disabilities to have the same opportunity of their counter parts. my testimony, which i encourage you to read, will describe how the convention advances, i believe, democracy, benefits businesses, and ultimately will advance opportunities for americans with disabilities worldwide. as a young congressman, i was proud to support the ada. it was more of a notion where values are grounded in the concept that all men are created equal. whether you're born with one arm, down syndrome, or without site. or injured on the job or in service to your nation. you have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. our founders did not preserve the notion just because it's the right thing to do. but because government is strongest when run for and by all of its people. some countries attempted to follow in the footstep of the u.s. and created similar but often infear our legislation

right of their citizens with disabilities. frankly, many simply just don't know how to do it. i believe strongly that being part of the disability treaty benefits the u.s. in other member nations. this treaty will enhance, notlessen, american sovereignty by allowing us to export constitutional values a abroad. not bad to export our value system. the u.s. will continue to lead the tbhorld establishing a democratic model for participation of all its citizens including the most vulnerable ones. i want to reference a gentleman behind me from georgia. he will tell you he's establish an organization in his own country, and the country of georgia. he's a john mccain fellow and

working at the national organization of disability. he'll tell you his own country is looking to america to validate his presence and his equality. it's about american leadership. in closing, i urge you to support ratification of a treaty that will have a tremendous impact on americans with disabilities at home and abroad. the treaty advances democracy in business, and above all, validates for the rest of the world the value of people with disabilities. i respect the differences of our nations leaders on many topics. i stand firm we must come together on the topic of disability. disability is not apolitical, racial, religious, our other barrier. it's a experience that has or will touch us all at some point. as the ink may fade on the declaration of independence. it's us to us to ensure that the words of equality, our country stands for, are everlasting. aalthough our own laws will not

change. it will validate that all men are indeed equal and senators will have a resounding impact on the billion persons with disabilities in the united states and around the world. i thank you for the opportunity to share this testimony before the committee. senator menendez. >> thank you, secretary. attorney general. >> it's a distinct pleasure for me, mr. chairman, and ranking member corker, and other members of the committee to testify once again before this committee in favor of the ratification of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. this treaty is an important component of the worldwide effort to advance disability rights. u.s. ratification would mark a major step forward in this effort, and to promote the rights of some one billion men, women, and children with disabilities around the world who lack recognition of their preimminent human rights. it would also serve to confirm american leadership and disability rights on the world

stage. today we are witnessing a new era of worldwide recognition of disability rights. today, as you have heard, a total of 158 countries, including the united states have signed the convention and 138 have ratified the terms. as many of you may know, i've been involved in the disability movement for many years. i'm also the father of a man with intellectual and physical disability. my son, peter, who was seriously brain injured at the age of 4 months in a 1960 automobile accident that tragically took the life of his mother, my first wife. as a attorney general of the united states, it was my great privilege to serve as the point person for the administration of president george h. w. bush. in the bipartisan effort to secure the passage of the americans with disability act in 1990. we find ourselves in a different place today than when i testified before this committee last summer. we've had the benefit of extensive discussion on property

vision of the disability treaty and the impact on u.s. domestic law. on the nature of u.s. leadership in the world, and indeed on the very nature of the treaty process itself. most important to me was the committee's adoption of a series of reservations, understandings, and declarations. that helped to clarify the scope and meaning of the convention. with the inclusion of these reservations understandings, and declaration. the disability treaty would require no changes to u.s., federal, or state law. and it would have no impact on the federal budget. the important reservation on federalism would ensure that the obligations that we undertake under the convention are limited to the authority of the federal government and do not reach areas of state and local jurisdiction. the reservation regarding private conduct would ensure that the u.s. will not accept any obligation except as mandated by the constitution and laws of the united states. i understand that some persons

of challenge long deceptive practice of using it in treaties. such claimants are misguided. and quite simply extraordinary. when the u.s. senate attaches condition to any treaty during the vice and consent process, these conditions become part of the treaty and have a force and effect of law. significantly, the disabilities treaty itself by its own term allows nations to add their own reservations during the ratification pro-- process. the only limitation on the reservation process being such that reservation shall not be incompatible with the object and purpose of the convention inspect in article i the convention states its purpose is to promote, protect, and ensure the full and equal joiment -- enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedom by all person with disability and promote respect for the inherit dignity. because the object and purpose of the disabilities treaty is to recognize and provide disability

rights for persons with disabilities, it includes by the committee last year fall well within the legal standard. the claims that somehow ratification will undermine u.s. sovereignty are misplaced. some have raised alarm over the existence of disability committee treated -- created by the treaty. it would have only an advisory role and no call -- and legal standards. nothing in this treaty prevents parents from home schooling or making other decisions about their children's education. the convention that braces the principle of the individuals with disabilities education act, adopted in this country which emphasizes the importance of the role of parents with -- of children with disabilities and making decisions on behalf of their children. in fact, many of the parents with children with disabilities choose to home school their children in order provide an

appropriate level of care and attention. and the convention specifically recognizes and protects the important role of the family, and protects children from being separated from their parents on the basis of a disability. ratification of the disability rights convention is an opportunity to export to the world the very best we have to offer. this is a chance to use our rich national experience in disability rights. which is gained the respect of the world commune toy extend the principle em boyed in the ada to hundreds of millions of people with disabilities worldwide, who today, have no domestic protection. we must ratify this convention so we can fulfill the role of world leader that is expected of us. thank you for your attention. >> thank you. >> chairman menendez, ranking member corker, member of the committee. thank you for inviting me to present my view on the convention of rights of persons with disability. i appreciate high hopes that some of my fellow veterans have,

for this treaty, i'm one of many veterans who don't share that optimism and like the vets realize while the treaty might help improve conditions abroad. american ratification of the treaty won't help disabled americans here or abroad. secretary kerry recently addressed summit on disability. he called the ada the gold standard. notably he didn't mention the treaty. there in the forum nations like russia declared the united states is the role model. it shows the u.s. is not only at the table but the head of the table. when it comes to treaties other governments will comply with or shirk the obligations whether we bind ourselves to them or not. i've been asked to address something in particular, the controversial term sexual reproductive in the treaty. i took part in the last round and there's no better example of the way u.n. bureaucracies disregard the will of nations by

routinely misinterpreting international obligations and instead promote their own agenda. first, 23 nations oppose this term throughout the negotiation. the large number would usually have ended debate and get it to the treaty proponents had to resort to things like secret meetings and venues where everyone was allowed. and nations were ensured that the treaty create nod new right, and that the term would not be used to promote abortion. yet, many nations took the additional step of putting this in the record on the day of copy. 15 nations, nearly off of all the statements knead day focused on reinforcing this understanding including the american statement. some reintegrated that at the time of signature believing it would be accepted and honored in good faith. since the time of adoption the fears come true. countries are being finished to change their laws. for example, in may, unicef announced it interprets the disability convention and the

convention on the right of the child as giving children as young as 10 years old a right to considerable, reproductive, and sexual health services. means adults who are not the child's parents can d -- without their parent's knowledge. second rights treaty body ignore the consensus of nations. ..

they should remove all reservations and this includes reservations that preserve the supremacy of the national constitutions over the treaty if there is a conflict. now in theory monitoring bodies have no other way to interpret treaties in ways that create new applications but in reality are accepting these interpretations is creating obligations. the high courts of columbia and argentina change their abortion laws citing the u.n. committees as authoritative. >> liberalized abortion in 2010 stating it did so because of this treaty and also the world health organization's definition that has been rejected by u.n. member states for 20 years. third, the main problem with that is that these cases could reverberate in u.s. law. the third i want to make is

this is not isolated just to this term. it's a stiff namic problem affecting a wide range of economic and social policies that americans care about. things are so bad the u.n. general assembly loans are processed to overhaul the monitoring committees and attempt to hold them accountable. even the united states said in those negotiations that before americans give more money to the u.s. human rights system which a pitcher the committees will not be doing business as usual and the reforms will actually have effects. simply put states parties and u.n. bureaucracy's find themselves at loggerheads in the interpretation of the text of the treaties and the very purpose of the u.n. treaty system. we do well to steer clear of running into further credibility are subjecting our mazda scrutiny. americans are making life better for disabled persons all over the world through their generosity there programs that usaid and countless other ways

and our diplomats to continue to recommend fairness opportunity for persons with disabilities around the world. thank you. >> thank you. professor meier. >> thank you chairman menendez ranking member corker for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today. unlike my colleagues i'm not here to port orders a pose the treaty. i am a professor of international law at the university of georgia had formerly an attorney at laser at the state department legal adviser. senators as you know the crp decree to committee on the rights for persons with disabilities that's purpose is to consider reports made by the states parties and to make suggestions recommendations and comments on those reports and with regard to the convention. in performing this task the

committee inevitably has to interpret the applications that are created by the convention. these interpretations issued by the committee are not legally binding in the committee does not have any authority to compel any changes to u.s. law. there is no legal authority for that. either that or the interpretations. the obligations created by the convention are vague and thus no state party is able to form any opinion about whether it or any other party is complying with the convention unless it forms the more specific notion of what constitutes compliance. it is therefore possible that other states parties would look to the committee or possibly likely the other states would look to the committee in its interpretations of the convention and forming their view of what counts as compliance with the convention and the conventions obligations. this role for expert committees

and human rights organizations has sometimes led them to claim that their interpretations of the conventions are charged with implementing while not legally binding are entitled to considerable authoritative weight. this is not a term that is defined anywhere nevertheless it is 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 interpretations issued by these committees are not legally binding nevertheless the claim of authority remains out there and somewhat unclear if i. at the same time declining to ratify the convention does not ensure that the committee's interpretations will not the asserted against united states. the committee's interpretations of the convention are the possible basis for the formation of customary international law. customer -- customary law does not require the universal assent of those governments to be found.

therefore the committee's interpretations could be a basis of customer international law and moreover it's the product is of expert committees under these human rights bodies to cite each other's work and interpretations of human rights laws when they are dealing with overlapping obligations. therefore it's possible that the united states would find work under interpretations from the committee on disability cited against it another treaty ratification bodies. human rights treaty bodies. therefore the niceties does ratify the convention is strong package to make clear the united states is not do the work of the committee as the basis for forming customary international law nor does the u.s. understand the committees interpretations are record -- i'll corded any special weight to go beyond the understanding incorporated in the resolution for ratification last year to make clear exactly what the united states views are with respect to the interpretations

created by the committee. without it and i look forward to your questions. >> that is the first time i have seen a law professor not take his full five minutes so we complement you. [laughter] for your preciseness. let's start a round of questions. thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony and very racially a claim of authority is different than the authority itself, is it not? >> that is correct, yes. >> and understanding or a reservation and understanding as you have described would clearly create a knowledge cs to any claim at least in the context of american law, would it not? >> for purposes of domestic law rud should ensure that u.s. courts 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 would necessarily affect the ability of other states parties to the convention to adopt the convention coming out of the committee with their interpretations. >> yes, other countries. secretary ridge i understand you are a strong supporter of homeschooling and i am sure you're zero where of the arguments made last year and that mr. farris has made here today. you speak to that issue. >> i certainly have been during my time as governor we saw a substantial increase in the number of children being homeschooled. i thank my colleague governor thornburgh attorney general thornburgh address this issue in his remarks and families with

children with disabilities for many reasons choose to provide schooling at home. so i do have a couple of thoughts on that. one, relying on the quality of legal interpretation that i have had an opportunity to review and also recognizing the reservations and the understandings and declarations the committee works to graft under the treaty considered last year, this matter is addressed. this treaty does not affect the ability of a parent to act in the best interest of the child and began according to people whose opinions i respect the fact of matter the matter is this treaty cannot be interpreted to bar or prohibit any parent from homeschooling their children. for me it's absolutely a non issue and i'm a strong component of homeschooling. >> congressman duckworth you come from a family of military veterans and you have developed

close relationships with senator dole and spend time with him during recovery and you served as secretary for veterans affairs. what do you say to the critics who say this treaty would really does not help u.s. veterans and what do you say to dr. yoshihara's assertion? if you would turn your microphone on. >> my understanding is amvets neither opposes nor supports the treaty. they are neutral on it but i will tell you that veterans of america of the american legion, also support this treaty and recognize the fact that our veterans should have the opportunity to travel internationally especially our disabled veterans. they set a wonderful example wherever they go. i have mentioned our post-9/11 g.i. bill. we would love to take advantage

of foreign study programs so they can spend time in a foreign university. they cannot do that. when i've gone to germany and italy on the bases there and visited with our wounded warriors i often could not take a -- on a four-hour pass to see the sites downtown because they simply were not accessible. so i think those who state this treaty would not have to better understand the situation of our military men and women and their families. many of these posts are duty stations that are very advantageous towards one's career and if you can't bring your family with you your child or spouse with a disability you have to make that tough choice. my career or do i leave my family behind and that is not a decision they should have to make. >> there are many in the pro-left him community who disagree -- pro-life community that disagree

with you. >> senator first i want to clarify something. i never said that the treaty wouldn't help. i said u.s. ratification. i agree with the khan cement. >> will you answer my question? >> yes senator. it's true national right right to life issued a statement at the time in this treaty had nothing to do with abortion and in fact we found after that time the treaty body is in fact interpreting that so the argument isn't with me so much as with the committee. >> in fact dozens of countries that -- abortion have ratified the treaty and some of the most fierce -- moreover the present of the human rights institute which i understand is your boss penned an article entitled u.n. disabilities treaty does not

create abortion rights. the article describes in detail how the parties negotiating treaty made clear and i quote the countries are free to keep their laws protecting the unborn in place and urges other pro-life activist to stop arguing about the phrase sexual reproductive health so there is obviously a much different point of view in i ask unanimous consent to include the article in the record. senator corker. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think members of witnesses have additional material and i would like to ask unanimous consent whatever materials they have can be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. so i would imagine every senator here on the whole idea of having a convention for the rights of peoples disabilities would want to support that. i can imagine anybody looks at something that might dance the rights of people with disabilities. i think people start with a great deal of optimism and it's

my sense that mr. thornburgh and mr. ridge and ms. duck worth want to see those rights advance throughout the world and to see the u.s. leadership in that area. at the same time i would assume that the three of you would not want a convention with any effect whatsoever on domestic love meaning you would not want a treaty that we have and all three of you are in agreement with that so it seems to me that instead of maybe taking the approach where we try to look at people who have concerns like that as enemies the concern would be to try to figure out a way to make sure they have a treaty that advances the efforts effort that the three of you are here about and have done such a wonderful job with it at the same time try to make sure the treaty doesn't have those unintended consequences. it's pretty phenomenal that today the supreme court is hearing a case where the exact

thing has occurred so my question first would be to mr. meyer to ask you this question. we have the rud issue which hopefully we will be examining over the next few weeks. is there a way in your opinion to write rud's on the front of the treaty that would absolutely ensure that there is no way for this treaty to affect either the federalism issues we have had to deal with or to cause the court to look to the treaty to affect the individual lives as citizens here in the country? is there a way for us coming together and writing rud's in that way? decentered thank you for the question. with respect to the federalism issue a federalism reservation could address the problems you have identified. the federalism reservation could be drafted to be somewhat stronger than the reservation that currently attached to the

resolution for ratification that came out last year. conceivably such a reservation would make very clear with the enumerated powers of the congress are and reserve any obligations that could be satisfied to the exercise of those powers. with respect to the interpretation issue a think a set of understandings could be drafted that would make her a clear the united states does not accord any significance to the interpretations of the convention afforded by the committee. it would go a long ways towards addressing the concern that the convention might be used to interpret federal statutes including pre-existing federal statutes. the current understanding or the understanding attached to the ratification last year spoke only to the issue of whether or not there is the authority to legally compelled changes to u.s. law. the committee clearly does not

have the authority to legally compel the changes to u.s. law. my written testimony suggests language that might be helpful to make clear the united states courts no interpretations of the committee. >> so it's your belief that the rud we have in place or the ones that came to the committee last year could more fully be written in such a way, could be enhanced to make sure that these types of issues did not come up? >> yes, i think it's possible to drop rud's that are stronger and would address these concerns. >> the two witnesses that have specific concerns about specific issues, do you also agree that there is a way to address the concerns that you have writing the rud's in a different way than they are now written? >> one of the problems with the reservations that has been

stated as they can be removed so if that was her protection -- >> that they would have to be removed by congress, right? >> that's right. >> i would like to try to solve this problem but i can't solve every problem 20 years from now but the fact is we ourselves would only be passing a law that would solve this problem and my question is -- >> what would it protect us from misinterpretation? the supreme court did cite a portion of the civil and political rights covenant we had specifically reserved on so there is precedent that the reservation may or may not help us in that regard. >> and if i could mr. farris if you would answer that question. >> senator i can't imagine a reservation that would be legally acceptable. that is consistent with the object and purpose of the treaty that would satisfy the reservations i would he needed to comply with the witnesses.

you would have to write the reservation to say this treaty shall not find the united states to comply with the standards of the treated which shall have no domestic legal effect. if you were to put the reservation that would define and i would support the treaty at that point in time. what is being argued is that the treaty has no domestic meaning. treaties when we accept a treaty the only nation in the world that we are binding is us. we don't find anybody else. our ratification has no external legal effect anywhere. what is being argued is external plug with fact and there is no record shown that our ratification of any other treaty has had external political effect seeking compliance with other legalized treaties. it's a shell game in the promises being made. we needs it determined whether not we will comply with the treaty or not and if we are not going to comply with a treaty we ought not to ratify it. the number one thing this

country should do is keep them in good faith. >> mr. chairman if i could, when i was speaking to ms. yoshihara and i said we can't solve the problems that happened 20 years ago what i meant to say is we cannot keep another congress from doing something else down the road. that was the point of that was trying to make and i appreciate the witnesses and look over to further conversations. >> senator boxer make me -- let me make another observation. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you ranking member corker. what an important day this is and i hope it will be viewed as a turning point. i really do. you know we all have our passions on a friday of social issues, issues that divide us deeply, really deeply but this treaty is really only about one thing. it is about improving the lives

of the billion people worldwide people with disabilities and 50 million of them who were living in america. ratifying this treaty is about making sure that when we, and they think this is something congresswoman duckworth stated that we in the united states encourage a country to improve rights and protections that person can't say hey he failed to ratify this treaty so we are not going to listen to you. leave me that is what is happening. it could encourage countries like ghana. listen to what the human rights set about ghana in her of work. many people live in unregulated camps. they are often changed to trees, concrete floors for weeks or months on end. they are beaten denied food forced to endure involuntary treatment. this treaty is about helping to right this terrible wrong and of

course as far as our veterans are concerned how could we turn away from our veterans? our veterans are unbelievable. i have a conference of casualty care center thanks to senators inouye and stevens who helped me get that in san diego. he just cannot keep our veterans down. we see it right here. you can't and they want to yes travel the world, they do. we need to pass this treaty but let's talk about what this treaty is not about. it is not about any particular health care procedure. this is not about a origin. it's not about vasectomies. it's not about cancer screenings. it's not about dental exams or 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. he came out today, if i might rate i'm going to ask congresswoman duckworth to comment on this. here is the title. why the u.s. misleads on disability treaties. doc carefirst discusses protecting the most vulnerable from health care-related discrimination including reproductive health care. he correctly points out that quote and i quote him, i want to precise this is him. in many parts of the world people with disabilities regardless of age are or believe to be sexually immature or in our day. the assumption can make them targeted for rape and other sexual crimes while at the same time gynecological in the stretcher go care or withheld and considered inappropriate. in other cases they are forced to be sterilized or forced to have worsened simply because they have a disability unquote.

dr. frist includes the health language is a necessary provision 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 represented duckworth do you agree with dr. frist especially his assessment 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. in the case of abortion the word is never mentioned once in the treaty. what this treaty will do is provide people overseas with disabilities with the rights, the same rights to access to health care that the rest of the population and that nation has. >> i want to make that case.

doctors farris you say you are speaking for the disabled by your statements are direct way contradicted by organizations network. every day 24/7 to protect disabled kids like united states international council counsel and disabilities who states quote this treaty protects parental rights and highlights the importance of parents in raising children with disabilities unquote. and tash says quote nothing included in this treaty prevents parents from homeschooling. this treaty embraces the spirit of individuals with disabilities education act americans with disabilities act and all disability nondiscrimination legislation but you doctors farris are the opposite. he wants even seven i quote the definition of disabilities not defined in the treaty so my kid wears glasses now they are disabled. now the u.n. can get control of that. in my opinion that is not --

if the child wears glasses they are not considered disabled. i wonder what is behind your fight and i asked this question for the record. have you ever tried to raise funds by telling parents the treaty will limit their ability to decide what is best for their children? >> senator our organization is funded by membership dues not by contributions. >> so you've never send out her name not asking for funds? >> the legal defense association is associated also at the group called parental rights.org. >> thank you very much. >> but senator the substantive answer is the treaty doesn't ban homeschooling. what the treaty does it shifts the decision-making authority from parents to the government. that is what the standard is. >> that is not something that i agree with nor do any of the organizations. thank you very much.

>> thank you mr. chairman. professor meier are you familiar with the case being argued before the supreme court today? >> i am. >> can you speak to how that is relevant in our discussion today to this treaty? >> to be very brief news law and was it of violating the chemical weapons -- >> in federal court, correct? >> it was a federal statute in the chemical weapons statute. whether or not congress had the authority to -- the implementation act. under it case dating back now 90 plus years called missouri v. holland the supreme court held in some circumstances it authorizes the federal government to make a treaty. congress may have the authority to enact a statute that would

not otherwise have under its enumerated powers. >> authority -- i'm just going to read out of article for. it says to this and article iv requires state parties to adopt appropriate measures modify legislation and discriminate against persons with disabilities. it 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 full realization of all human rights. >> to me i am hearing from supporters of the bill that this does not obligate the u.s. to do anything. sounds to me like it's a strong obligation. mr. farris do you want to comment on that? >> yes, senator. that's exactly the point. the united states is making a

solemn promise under international law that we will comply with the treaty and despite whatever federalism reservations or other reservations though simply have the effect of deciding which agency of government has the duty of implementing the treaty. the congress or the states with the duty to implement the treaty is never extinguished. we have to implement the treaty or else we are in violation of international law. his that mean someone can invade this country because we don't comply with the treaty? enforcement of international law is problematic in the general sense so can they force us to obey the treaty? no, not realistically. they cannot force us to but are we going to undertake a treaty knowing we are going to disobey at? that's not right. only if we intend to fully and completely abandon good faith. why am here today is we are not going to do this and what professor hankin said when the

united states tends to ratify treaty it diminishes our standing in the world today. >> attorney general fund for i think we all recognize the u.s. is the gold standard on disability rights. again what i'm trying to grapple with if we are the gold standard i understand why other countries obligate themselves to be our gold standard. i'm just not quite getting why we should be ratifying a treaty that obligates us to do things that are open to interpretation. that is my concern and that is the core concern of those that may not be supportive of the treaty currently. can you explain that to make? >> i think so. the basic gap i think in understanding the consequences of rud's are, the treaty that is adopted includes the

reservations understanding the declarations that accompany it so that when we say we are not going to do something that we have specified we do not include within the ambit of the treaty is amended by the rud's it does not mean we are flouting the convention. it means we are implementing it with the rud's in mind and that's sure not only in with united states does but other countries. >> if we are the gold standard what do we have to implement as a country? >> there is nothing new that we are obliged to do wonder this because frankly it draws so completely and thoroughly on the americans with disabilities act. >> so again what is the u.s. have to do this? i understand why the countries and servicemembers to have other countries ratified this. i'm still not getting why we

have to. >> the u.s. is a world leader. in order to preserve that status and maintain its credibility as the gold standard manufacture we simply have to share the insight that we have acquired and urged the other nations of the world within a structured framework to follow that in order to ensure that those countries and their citizens who we have heard described today in some detail suffer from the lack of this kind of standard, they're right to boot strap themselves into a gold standard position. >> thank you and i think senator you raise a question that many have raised and i think it deserves a considered answer and i'll 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 advocacy is virtue by signing onto the treaty and ratifying it poses in a leadership position to get the world to move in that direction so tammy.werth and mark kirk or anyone similar will be able to travel anywhere in the world and have the greater likelihood that there accessed to fulfill their god-given potential whether that is in a job, whether that's a business or for travel whether it's for advocacy will be achieved in american businesses will our delete the world in terms of accessibility standards in the stands will be the standards that other countries will adopt. so eric looked grand who has this big wheelchair, motorized wheelchair will be able to travel in other places around the world and how they access the that's why ratification of the treaty expands our reach and their efficacy to ultimately get the world not simply buy a reflection of up with united

states does but its advocates. i think is a very good question that has been raised. >> mr. chairman can i offer -- >> let me turn to senator cardin and we will get you to work it in. >> i will try to make some time for you to ponder that. let me further answer senator johnson's point following up with chairman menendez quoting from general thornburgh's written statement which i think is very of pro. we should not be so proud as to think we cannot learn from other countries about how to meet the challenges of providing better opportunity for people with disabilities. this is a gathering. it doesn't mean it changes are lost but we learn how to do things better and that's part of the international community to help people with disabilities. i also want to acknowledge my former colleague can coello

who's been here. he was a great help when i came to the house of representatives on this issue in so many other issues and tony it's good to see you. i also want to knowledge lola neuhaus from silver spring maryland attending the maryland school above. rhoda is a bilateral amputee and has traveled to over 40 countries to study work and travel abroad for individuals with disabilities. it's nice to have you here. mr. chairman and general thornburgh and secretary ridge i will give you the chance to respond to this. we all acknowledge that the treaty is based upon basically the u.s. law, it dta. i remember in 1991 congressman hoyer who is chairman of the u.s. helsinki commission travel to moscow and became part of the

moscow declaration document which started the international effort to use u.s. law as the model to protect universal -- universally the rights of people with disabilities. the united states is the leadership. the point that i would raise the failure to ratify compromises the u.s. ability to advance the standards globally. it weakens our own credibility to participate in the development internationally of the rights of the with disabilities and is the chairman pointed out and others have pointed out it also compromises very much american citizens who are in other countries and their own protections. we are certainly not in the same position as we would for the rights of people in our own country. secretary ridge your comments? >> thank you very much senator. i want to respond to an appropriate question from senator johnson if i might.

i think regardless of where you are in the political spectrum we all feel very fortunate and grateful that we live in the united states of america and it's a very unique place. if america was considered to be a product we could try to sell our private overseas, what is our brand? i think our brand is the constitution rule of law and our value system. under that rand and under that value system there is that notion of equal under the eyes of the law and that value system is the ada in trying to elevate the rights of americans with disabilities. when we have an opportunity to advance america the product not through the military and not for diplomacy but to be the convener around an issue that is humanitarian in nature and elevating the rights of people globally with disabilities i think we enhance the brand and we enhance the product via

enhancing ourselves. we say to the rest of the world let's think about it from your point of view. you're asking the rest of the world to adopt america's standard. you have found from time to time that is difficult to do but with the ratification of 100 plus countries regardless of where they are they like the brand. they like the value system. they want to embrace the notion of elevating the rights of the let us abilities. the gentleman behind me as i mentioned before is from the king institute for national -- he was disabled in 2003. he establish an organization in the country of georgia and he is working on ratification of the there. he will be the first one to tell you do you know what the country george is going to look to? they are going to see whether or not whether america ratifies the treaty so i suggest regardless of where we are all of us have an interest in promoting america

and by doing so promoting the brand in our value system. i think it has as much of a lasting impact is anything we can do to format it in no better place to convene an leave that discussion globally than the united nations. i think it's a very improved grid question but i hope you embrace the notion that there is great value globally and internationally. we don't sacrifice our party prettier change america to advance our -- and we advance our brand and our value system and i appreciate the chance for getting my thoughts on that issue. >> thank you. if i could follow up with regard to the case of the supreme court currently hearing on von versus the u.s. mr. thornburgh were you surprised when you heard that the federal government was using a treaty or convention in order to bring charges against an

individual with chemical weapons treaty? were you surprised that this was used in this fashion? >> yes. >> if you are surprised by that, what can you reassure us that you won't be sub prized that this treaty is used for a similar purpose? >> by that time the supreme court will have thrown out the decision and the basis for it. >> the fact that it is even brought and it survived one challenge for one level as well. >> let me mention sad to say the department of justice does not always act wisely and that there are occasions when mistakes are made in the pursuing of cases and controversies that really don't rise to the level where they are appropriate. there are examples on the other

side as well and that is where the department has rightfully stretched the law to cover situations that clearly warrant contemplated as in the rodney king case for example where he was ultimately convicted under the federal civil rights laws but the police officers were convicted. it was a police brutality case. it was not a civil rights case but are laws maintain a of flexibility that would in use in particular situations where the occasion rises but i don't anticipate that happening on a day-to-day basis under a treaty like the u.n. treaty and clearly we have to put some semblance of judgments and confidence in the judgment of our lawmakers and those who execute those laws will make mistakes and i think it's a mistake in the chemical warfare case is an example.

>> governor rich were you surprised to hear the bond case? [inaudible] it was brought to my attention and i frankly don't know enough to comment. i would say however based on the experience of the individual i respect enormously seated to my right eye would align myself with his response. i think we all know, we all know from recent experience that and we have all questioned the judgment of the department of justice on several occasions i'll think there could be any guarantee that there would potentially be litigation. we live in a litigious society. it doesn't necessarily mean -- [inaudible] we should expect a little better judgment. >> should but we have a tough time legislating a lot of other things let alone judgment so we will never field to do that but i think if you make the perfect

the enemy of the good and conclude that somehow some litigation will undermine this, i just haven't drawn that conclusion from what i have read but i can't draw analogy or comparison before the supreme court and this treaty. >> is surprised the heck out of me that the federal government was using this. it would also surprised me if it works his way to the supreme court and they agree with the department of justice here. having said that when assurances are being made in this hearing and elsewhere by those that this would never be used as a basis to hold anybody in the u.s. to account and to account for this treaty then that rings pretty hollow today in been the case is being heard by the supreme court i think it would behoove us at

least to see just as mr. thornburgh you said you are surprised that the case was brought. we would all be surprised if the supreme court ruled this way as well but it would he who blessed thing to see how they rule before we go ahead with this. that is just the way i feel here i tend to discount some of the claims about this applying to u.s. law and my own questions about whether it's worth it simply because we are saying on one hand it matters a lot and on the other hand we are saying it really doesn't matter and what's the use of the treaty if it's treated like that? but here i think we are also priced at the action of the department of justice here and i think we have to see how the supreme court rules before moving ahead. thank you mr. chairman. >> just an observation.

i understand the senator's concerns. i appreciate it. the justice department has prosecuted cases on federal statutes not implementations of treaties that go far field with the federal government intended. it has nothing to do with the treaty. the armed services act the supreme court termed provisions about prosecutions were sweet but never totally rely -- it's a judgment will be effective and of the day so as an example of nontreaty piece of legislation that was used in an appropriate way for prosecution as the supreme court determined so there's no absolute guarantee since the bond case has been raised several times i think there is a that of the differentiation here that should be considered. a bond involves congress has authority under both the commerce clause and the treaty power along with the necessary

clause and the treaty power would not irrelevant to u.s. implementation and disabilities convention because the ada does not rely on the treaty power. in fact it was passed before the disabilities convention had ever been negotiated in the commerce clause analysis addressing the chemical weapons implementation act is unlike to be relevant to the ada. i think there is -- i understand the concern but i think there are differentiations in this respect. >> of the gentlemen would yield for just a second. the bond case has nothing to do with the commerce clause. second i would just say the certainty with which we are all saying this won't apply to us here is shaken a bit by the bond case and that is what i wanted to say. >> i appreciate it. i'm simply saying the armed services act has nothing to do with the treaty through the

supreme court found elements of how that was used to prosecute people was an over constitution you cannot protect that until you get to the supreme court and i do think the bond case has three elements to it. it has to treaty power but it also has questions that arise under the commerce clause so in that respect it's a little different. >> senator i want to continue this because we have raised this issue as if it stops us cold. we can't go forward on this disability convention until he worked out this bond case. i would say to professor meyer and mr. thornburgh thursday clear distinction here. the bond case is not being raised under the treaty convention when it comes to chemical weapons. this case is being prosecuted under the implementation act, a set red act of congress implementing the treaty.

two different things. when we come to the disability act what is the implementation act under the convention for disabilities? there is none. the only implementation act as the americans with disabilities act which as been on the books for 20 years. we tested that over 20 years? has it eliminated ms. homeschooling mr. fares? i don't think so. has it mandated abortion across america dr. yoshihara? no it hasn't. americans with disabilities act is the act we have adopted at the treaty on disabilities. the bond cases dealing with the implementation act on the conventional weapons treaties, two separate actions by congress. one ratifying the convention of chemical weapons and two passing a law called the the implementation act the law of the land. now the supreme court will decide if that law is proper.

so conflating the two and saying it's all about the same thing one of our scholarly colleagues the junior senator from texas said in a "washington post" piece of the supreme court concludes the treaty can be used to prosecute americans regardless of the constitutional rights the ramifications can be alarming. the prosecution is not under a treaty. the prosecution is under the implementation. it's different. it's a law of congress. i am just stopped cold with this argument by mr. fares that the americans with disabilities act is going to end homeschooling in america. is that your position? >> that is, if position. my position is that the treaty changes the legal requirements in this country that it's not correct to say accordance with the treaty. since i believe there will be required implementation act that complies with the garments of

the treaty i think at that point in time that is when the problems will arise. >> mr. fares the fact that the administration is not asking for implementation and made it clear it's not seeking it because the americans with disability act already is controlling and has been extensively litigated since disability standards in our country which are higher than any in the world you don't find that convincing? >> that's the same administration that is prosecuting the homeschooling family to try to expel them from the united states who came here here -- >> under the americans with disabilities act? >> came your under our live -- law of asylum. >> let me just say mr. farris -- >> allow me to answer the question. >> don't think you can answer because you want to talk about something other than the

conventional disabilities. >> disabilities. >> is a different legal standard than the ada. there are numerous organizations that say so and i include their citations in my written testimony. i'm not the only one that says that. the cr pd committee says that. >> if we have a battle up there and stations supporting or this i think we will prevail because we have the mainstream disability organizations across america supporting the adoption of this convention on disabilities. i struggle with the notion that we are we are somehow going to stop this effort to extend the rights to disabled around the world for fear of something which can't clearly articulate when it comes to homeschooling. as mr. ridge says, we have been friends in both capacities. he supports homeschooling indyk tutu. this is not going to affect homeschooling.

the american disabilities act for 20 years has not affected homeschooling and i yield back my time. >> senator mccain i want to extend my hershey shin for his advocacy for the last effort and this effort has been an invaluable voice in this regard. >> thank you mr. chairman and i think the witnesses and i especially thank thornburgh and tom ridge. i think you preferred governor to those, don't you? [laughter] i want to thank you and i remember with great nostalgia that day the president of the united states herbert walker bush signed the americans with disabilities act on the lawn of the white house and so many of our friends from the disabilities community were there to celebrate. i don't know anyone who doesn't leave that the passage of that

was not an unqualified success. he gave opportunities for some of our disabled community to get ahead in our society and have the rights which they had previously been deprived of. mr. meyer, you made some important constructive recommendations in my view in this legislation and your statement. i would like to ask you a couple of additional questions. on the issue of abortion, the resolution advise and consent that this committee passed last year that contained the following understanding on how the treaty relates to u.s. law concerning abortion quote nothing in the convention including article xxv addresses the provision of any particular health program or procedure. do you think that that is sufficient to address the concerns raised about what effect this treaty might have on the u.s. laws and policies

regarding abortion and how would you recommend we improved that provision that we adopted last year? the senator of course as i believe secretary ridge mentioned we live in a litigious country so one can guarantee there will never be a lawsuit asserting that the convention creates certain abortion rights. no one can guarantee the committee will not take such a position. >> but do you have suggested language that could strengthen that to lessen that likelihood? >> yes. with respect to the role of the committee i think the language referenced in my testimony or similar language the committee's interpretations are not entitled to any weight whatsoever. or any deference for example from u.s. courts could go a long way towards assuring federal courts are not owing to be prone

to follow interpretations the committee might adopt and congress would find objectionable. also the language you reference and the rud's make this clears the nondiscrimination to large extent does not -- the language you read does not address any particular procedure. it just simply states there shall be no discrimination. >> i've vitiate it, the specific language if you would submit to us. obviously it were shin is a huge aspect of this issue shoe with many americans and may affect the judgment of several members of this committee. i want to close out as tightly as we can recognizing there may always be some challenges, so i think you see my point. >> i do senator and i would be happy to read the language on

the understanding that might help address the role of the committee. one might include language that states united states understands the committee's interpretations of the convention are not entitled to any way apart from that given to them by states parties to the convention. one can imagine my eyeing that specific reference in federal courts or one could imagine modifying that language to specifically understand united states there should be no weight given in the u.s. courts unless the united states has adopted enter fishing consistent with this domestic receipts are regarding the creation of international obligations. >> mr. chairman i hope they be we could look at that language as we move forward and we need

to assure the pro-life community that this would not have any effect on present u.s. policy. mr. meyer have you seen any serious restriction or violation of the rights of parents regarding the education of their children as a result of the treaties that we have ratified the convention on the rights of the child, children in armed conflict, optional protocol on children and i guess in armed conflict, have you seen any serious or strict and or violation of the rights of children regarding their education of children as a result of the previously senate ratified treaties? >> i'm not aware of that. >> would you read the cynic in ratified the sierra pd in a way that protects the rights of parents and the primacy of u.s.

law just as we have in these other instances? >> yes, think it's possible to address these concerns. >> right now do you see sufficient rud or should we have additional language? >> some of the additional language would be helpful in addressing some of these concerns going forward. i think also as i mentioned to senator corker one can mention on the federal points potentially a stronger reservation to deal with the federalization issue but i think these rud's can be crafted. >> i am out of time mr. chairman. thank you. >> thank you mr. chair into the witnesses could testimony and the questions have been helpful. one of the reasons i love king assigned to this committee as the new center is the nation-state is simple the american leadership in the world is in a shin statement of this committee and that is the combination of economic military diplomatic and moral leadership.

many of the witnesses have spoken to this. we have is a country shown great moral leadership on the issue of rights of folks with disabilities so off the top of my head and with my handy research tool during testimony the rehabilitation act and the education for all handicapped children act of 1975 individuals with disability education act of 1990 americans with disabilities act 1990. those this of the four i thought about the top of my head. these do set the gold standard for the world but i think it's appropriate for us to make it part of our brand governor ridge i think entering into this treaty will be good for citizens with disabilities and good for citizens around the world with disabilities but i also i think it would be good for this body, this body this senate. this is one of those issues where i think that thin diagram overlapping the various partisan

positions is near complete. i couldn't help but notice, i was looking up the dates of the passage of all four of those statutes with respect to disability rights. they were all passed and signed by republican presidents. 73 present necks and 75 resident ford and president bush 41. this is an issue where it's not what you normally see up here where democrats want to do something and republicans don't or republicans want to do something in democrats don't.