have -- we are all in agreement with that? it seems to me that instead of, you know, maybe taking an approach where we try to look at people, have concerns like that as enemies the concern would be to figure out a way to make sure that you have a treaty that advances the effort that the three of you are here about and have done a wonderful job with. at the same time, to try to make sure that the treaty doesn't have the unintended consequences like the case that is pretty phenomenal that today the supreme court is hearing a case where the exact thing occurred. my question, first, to mr. meyer, to ask you the question. we have the ruds issue, hopefully we'll be examining over the next few weeks. s there a way, in your opinion, to rite it on the front end of treaty that would absolutely ensure there's no way for this

treaty to affect either the federalism issues that we have to deal with or to cause a court to look to the treaty to actually affect the individual lives of citizens here in the country? is there a way of us coming together and writing ruds in that way? >> senator, thank you for the question. i think with respect to the federalism issue, a federalism reservation could address the federalism problem that you've identified. federalism reservation could, i think, be drafted to be somewhat stronger than the reservation that currently reservation attached to the resolution for ratification that came out last year. conceivably such a reservation would make very clear what the e numb rated powers that congress possesses are. and reserve out of any obligations that couldn't be satisfied through the exercise of those powers. with respect to the interpretation issue, i think a set of understanding could be

drafted that would make very clear that the united states does not accord any significance to the interpretation of the convention afforded by the committee. i think it would go a long way toward addressing the concern that the convention might be used to interpret federal statutes including essentially preexisting federal statutes like the a. d. a. the current understanding or the understanding that was attached to the ratify caption last year spoke only the issue of whether or not there was the authority to legally compel changes to u.s. law. the committee clearly does not have the authority to legally compel the changes to u.s. law. one could imagine and my written testimony suggests some language that might be helpful to further make clear that the united states accords no weight to the interpretations of the committee. >> so it's your belief that the ruds we have in place are the ones that came to the committee last year could more fully be

written in such a way enhanced to make sure that these types of issues didn't come up. >> yes. i think it's possible to draft ruds that are stronger and address these concerns more wholesomely. >> to the duowitnesses that had specific concerns about specific issues; do you also agree that there is a way to address the concerns that you have by writing the ruds in a different way than they are now written? one of the problem with the reservation are standards that can be removed response if that was our protection and the removed then i would assume -- >> they would have to be removed by congress? right. >> that's right. i would like to try to solve the problem. i can't solve every problem. the sphact we are protect it

from misinterpretation. the supreme court did cite a portion of the -- >> if i could. if you would answer the question. >> senator, i can't imagine a reservation that would be legally acceptable. that is consistent with the objective purpose of the treaty that would satisfy the reservations that would be needed to comply with the three positive witnesses. you have to the right of the reservation to say the treaty should not bibbed the united states to comply with the standards of the treaty and have no domestic legal effect. if you put the reservation in, that would be fine. i support the treaty that the point in time. it's meaningless then. what is being argued is that the treaty has no domestic meaning. and treaties --

when we accept a treaty the only nation in the world that we're binding is us. we don't bind anybody else. our ratification has no external legal effect anywhere. what is being argued is external political effect. there's no record shown or ratification of any other treaty has had external effect effective. the number one thing this country should do with the treaty obligation is to keep them in good faith. >> mr. chairman, if i could. when i was speaking to the doctor and i said we can't solve all the problems that happened 20 years ago. whey meant to say is we cannot keep another congress from doing something else doing the road. that was the point i was trying to make. i appreciate the witnesses. i look forward to further

conversations. >> senator barbara boxer. let me make -- what the ranking member did on the limitation treaty has no consequence whatsoever. i don't think he believes that. senator boxer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, ranking member corker. what an important day it is. i hope it will be viewed as an attorneying point. i really do. you know, we have our passions on a variety 77 social issues. issues that define us deeply. really deeply. but this treaty is only about one thing it's about improving the lives of a billion people worldwide. people with disabilities and 50 million of them who are living in america. ratifying this treaty is about making sure that whether we, i think it's something that congressman duckworth stated. when we encourage a country to improve rights and protections, that country can't say, hey, you

failed to ratify this disability treaty so we're not going listen to you. and believe me, that's what is happening. it could help encourage countries like -- listen to what the human rights watch said about ghana in a report. many disabled people live in unregulated carps. they are often chained to trees with, concrete floors for weeks or months on end. they're beaten, denied food, forced to endure involuntary treatmenty. this treaty is about helping to right the terrible wrong. how can we turn away from our veterans? you just cannot keep our veterans down. we see it right here. you can't.

and they want to, yes, travel the world. they do. and we need 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 abortion. it's not about have a vasectomy. it's not about cancer screenings. it's not about dental exams or prostate exams. it's about making sure that people are treated equally on all fronts. including their need to get health care. i want to place in the record a wonderful piece written by dr. bill frist. it came out today, if i might? >> yes. >> and i am going ask congresswoman duckworth to comment on this. here is the title "why the u.s. must lead on disability treaty." in this dr. frist discusses a part of the treat that protecting the most vulnerable

including reproductive health care. he correctly points out, quote, i quote him. i want to be precise. in many part of the world, people with disabilities regardless of age are believed to be sexually immature or inactive. the assumption can make them targets for rape and other sexual crimes while at the same time gynecological are withheld and considered inappropriate. in other cases, they are forcibly sterile losed or forced to have abortions simply because they have a disability. unquote. dr. frist concludes that the treaty sexual and reproductive health language is a necessary provision to politic -- protect the disabled. he unequivocally states, quote, the treaty doesn't create any new services not previously available or legally sanctioned in an adoptive cunning. so representative duckworth, do you agree with the doctor

especially with the assessment that the treaty does not create any new services not previously available or legally sanctioned in any adopting country? >> senator boxer, yes, i agree with the statement. in the case of abortion. it's never mentioned one in the treaty. what the 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 -- >> thank you. >> have access to. >> thank you. i wanted to make the case. doctor, you say you are speaking for the disabled. your statement trick -- directly contra distincted by organizations that work to protect disabled kid like the united states international counsel on disabilities who states, quote, this treaty protects parental rights and highlight the important role of parents in raising children with disabilities.

unquote. and you know that organization, says, quote, nothing included in this treaty prevents fashts from home schooling. this treaty embraces the spirit of individuals with disabilities education act, americans with disabilities act, and all disabilities nondiscrimination legislation. you, doctor, argue the opposite. you once even said, i quote, the definition of disability is not defined in the treaty. and so my kid wears glasses. now they're disabled. now the u.n. can get control of them. well, if i would say, my opinion, that's nonsense if a child wears glasses they're considered disabled. i wonder what is behind your -- i ask the question for the record. have you ever tried to raise funds by telling parents this treaty will limit their ability to cdz what is best for their children? >> senator, our organization is fund bid membership dues.

>> you have never sent out an e-mail asking for funds? >> no. home school legal defense association is associated also with a group called parental rights.org. they sent out fundraising. >> thank you very much. >> senator -- >> yes. >> the substantiative answer is the treaty doesn't ban home schooling. what the treaty does is shifts the decision-making authority from parents to the government. that's what the meeting of the best interest standard is. >> it's not something i agree with nor do any of the organizations. thank you very much. >> well, -- >> senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> professor, are you familiar with the case being argued upon the supreme court today? >> i am. >> can you speak to how that is relevant to our discussion here today on this treaty? >> sure, to be brief. the bond was convicted of violating the chemical weapons implementation act.

she -- >> in federal court; correct? >> correct. the federal statute implementing the chemical weapons convention. what is basically the issue is whether or not congress had the authority to pass the chemical weapons implementation act. under a case dating back, now, 90 plus years the supreme court held in at least some circumstance if the treaty power authorizes the federal government to make a treaty and the treaty is otherwise vailed. congress may have the authority enact a statute that it would not otherwise have. under any of the enumerated power. >> i'm going to read out of article iv. it says to the end article iv requires state parties to adopt all appropriate measures to implement the right and the convention, move legislation, and practice of discriminated against persons with dainlts -- disability finance seems like a

strong obligation. what am i missing here? >> senator, it seems like strong obligation. >> to me, i'm hearing from supporters of the bill that this does not obligate the u.s. to do anything. it sounds like it's a strong obligation. mr. ferries, do you want to comment on that? >> yes, senator. that is exactly the point. the united states is making a solemn promise on international law that we will comply with the treaty. and despite whatever federalism reservations or other reservations, those simply have the effect the court or the congress or the state. the duty to implement the treaty is never extinguished. we have to implement the treaty

or else we have in violation of international law. does it mean that somebody can invade the country militarily because we don't comply with the treaty? informsment of international law is problematic in a general sense. so can they force to to obey the treaty? >> not realistic they can't force us to do. are we going undertake a treaty knowing we're going disobey it? that's not right. we ought to undertake a treaty obligation only if we intend to fully and fairly and completely abandon good faith. what i'm hearing today is we're not going do it. it's what the professor said that when the united states pretends to ratify a treaty and actually undertakes nothing. it diminishes our standing in the world community. >> attorney general, i think we kind of recognize that the u.s. is sort of the gold standard on disability rights. so, again, what i'm trying to grapple with if we're already the gold standard, i certainly understand why it's in our best interest to have other countries

obligate themselves to meet our gold standard. i'm not just getting why we should be ratifying a treaty that obligates us to do things that are open to substantiative interpretation. that's my concern. i think it'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 adopted includes the reservations understanding the declaration that accompany it so when we say we're not going do something that we have specified we not include within the gamete of the treaty as amended by ruds. it doesn't mean we're flouting the convention. it means we're implementing it with the ruds in mind. 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 implement as a country? what do we have to implement? >> nothing new we are obliginged to do under this. because, frankly, it draws so completely and thoroughly on the americans with disabilities act. >> so again, what is the benefit -- why does the have to do this? ibdz why other countries -- it's beneficial to us and our members of servicemembers to have other countries ratify this and implement it. i'm still not get requesting we have to. >> the u.s. is a world leader, senator. >> and we pass the americans with disability to show the leadership. >> in order to preserve the status and maintain the credibility, as the gold standard manufacturer, we simply have to share that insight that we have acquired and urge the other nations of the world within a structured frame work to follow that in order assure

that those countries and their citizens who we've heard described today -- suffer from the lack of this kind of statute. >> let me take a on in the say while we believe the treaty will not impose any new obligation on the united states, since we already have the highest standard in the world are -- virtue by signing tonight treaty and ratifying it puts in a leadership position to get the world to move in the direction so tammy duckworth will be able to travel anywhere in the world and have the greater lively hood their access fulfill their god-given potential. whether it's in a job, business,

for travel, whether it is for advocate will be able to achieve. and american businesses will already the lead the world in term of seability standards. those standards will be the standards that other countries will adopt so that, you know, erick, the football player from rutgers who ha as a big motorized wheelchair will be able to travel another place in the world and likely have the access. that's why ratification of the treaty expands our reach and our advocate to ult -- -- but -- i think it's a good question it's been raised. i think it deserves -- >> mr. chairman, can i offer a few -- >> let me -- if i can -- senator cardin, and then we'll -- we'll get you to work it in. >> all right. >> i'll try to leave time for you to respond that. >> thank you. >> let me further answer, senator johnson's point

following up with chairman menendez quoting from general thorn berg's written statement. i think it's appropriate here. we should not be proud to think that 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 we change our laws. we learn how to do things better. and that's part of being an international community in an effort to help people with disabilities. i also want to acknowledge my former colleague, who is here. he's been a great help when i came to the house of representatives on this issue and some of the other issues and, tony, it's good to see you. i want to acknowledge mrs. -- also a bilateral amputee and we'res prosthetic legs. she traveled over to 40

countries for work and study. it's nice to have you here. mr. chairman, i guess to general -- or secretary ridge. i'll give you the chance to respond to this. we all acknowledge that the treaty is based upon basically the u.s. law. ada, we pass that in 1990. i remember in 1991, congressman -- chairman of the commission traveled 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 universally the rights of people with disabilities. so the united states has been the leadership. the point that i would raise a failure to ratify, i think, comprises the u.s. ability to advance these standards

globally. it weakens our credibility to participate in the development internationally of rights of people with disability and as chairman pointed out and others pointed out it also comprises very much american citizens in other countries and their own protections that we haven't ratified the treaty we're certainly not in the same position as we would for the right of people for our own country. secretary ridge, your comments. >> thank you, senator. i wanted to respond to i thought an appropriate question from senator johnson, if i might. i think regardless where you are on the political spectrum, we feel very fortune and grateful we live in the united states of america and it's a unique place. if america was considered to be a product, and we try to sell our product overseas, what is our brand? i think our brand is a constitution, the rule of law and the value system. and under that brand and under

the value system, there is a notion of equal under the eyes of the law. under that brand and value system is the aka and trying to elevate the rights of americans with disabilities. and when we have an opportunity to advance america, the product, not through the military, and not through diplomacy but to be the convener around an issue that is humanitarian in nature, and that is elevating the rights of people globally with disabilities. i think we enhance the brand and we enhance the product by enhancing ourselves. so we say to the rest of the world, let's think about it from their point of view. we are asking the rest of the world to adopt american standards. we found, from time to time, that's pretty difficult to do. but with the ratification of 100 plus countries we have seen at least on this issue 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 people with disabilities.

the gentleman behind me is -- as i mentioned before from the cain institute of international leadership. these a remarkable young man. he was disabled in 2003. he established an organization in the country of georgia and he's working on ratification over there. he'll be the first one to tell you you know what the country is going to look to? they're going to see whether or not, among other things, whether or not america ratifies the treaty. i suggest regardless where we're on the political aisle. all of us have an interest of promoting america, and by doing so, promoting the brand and value system, i think has as much lasting impact anything et. cetera. -- lead the discussion globally than the united nations. and i think it's an appropriate question, senator johnson. but i hope you'll embrace the notion that there's great value globally, internationally, we don't sacrifice sovereignty. we don't change any american

laws to advance our interest and we advanced our brand and value system. i thank you, senator, for giving me an opportunity to share the thoughts with you. were you surprised when you heard that the federal government was actually suing -- or using a treaty or convention in order to bring charges against an individual chemical weapons treaty? were you surprised that this was used in this fashion? >> yes. >> okay. if you're surprised by that, what can reassure us you won't be surprised that this treaty is used for similar purpose?

i think by that time the supreme court will have thrown out the decision and basis for it. >> but the fact that even brought and survived one challenge -- well, -- up one level as well. let me mention that -- cases and controversy that don't rise to the level where they're appropriate. there are examples; however, on the other side as well. the department has rightfully stretched the law to cover situations that clearly weren't contemplated specifically the rodney king case, for example, where he was overly convicted under the federal civil rights laws -- or the police officers were convicted. excuse me.

what people knew what was going on. it was a police brutality case. it wasn't civiles rights. our laws maintained great flexibility we can use in particular situations where the occasion arises. i don't anticipate that happening on a day-to-day basis under treaty like the u.n. treaty. it clearly -- they make mistakes. i think the mistake in the chemical weapon fair case is a example. governor ridge were you surprised to hear the bond case? >> [inaudible] >> it was brought to my attention in a few hours. frankly, i don't know enough to comment. i would say; however, based on the experience of the individual i respect enormously and seated to my right, i wouldn't -- i would align myself with his response. i think we all know from recent

experience that -- we have all questioned the judgment of the department of justice on civil more recent occasions, and i don't think there could ever be any guarantee there wouldn't potentially be litigation. we live in a will tinge use society. somebody may take to court. it doesn't necessarily mean. >> the federal government suing and using this -- >> but -- >> we should expect a little better judgment. >> we should. but we have a tough time legislating a lot of other things let alone judgment. we'll never be able to do that. 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 have read. i can't draw any analogy or comparison between the present case before the supreme court and the treaty. >> well, let me just tell you it surprised the e heck -- the heck out of me the federal government -- >> me as well.

>> using this. it would also surprise me if it works the way through the supreme court and they agree with the department of justice here. having said that, i think 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. account -- to account for this treaty then that rings pretty hollow today when is the case is being heard by the supreme court. i would think that it would -- at least to see just as -- you say you are surprised that the case was brought, i think, we would be surprised if the supreme court ruled this way as well, but it would baffle us to see how they rule before we go ahead with this. that is just --

i tend to discount the claim about the supply of the u.s. law. i had my own questions about whether or not it's worth it . ..

we literally live on the justice department and the judgment will be affected at the end of the day so as an example of a nontreaty piece of legislation that was used in an inappropriate way for prosecution as the supreme court determined so there is no absolute guarantee and i would just say since the bond case has been raised several times i think there is a bit of that differentiation here that should be considered. bond involves congress's authority under both the commerce clause and the treaty power along with enough this -- necessary power and the treaty power would not be relevant to you a simple mentation of the disabilities conventioconventio n because the ada does not rely on the treaty power. in fact it was passed before the disabilities convention had ever been a issued in the commerce caught damage -- commerce clause implementation act as am i good to be relevant to the ada.

the statue is ben liggett -- litigated in the supreme court so understand the concern but i think their differentiations in this respect. >> it the gentleman would yield for just a second. the bond case has nothing to do with the commerce clause sits under the treaty here but second i would just say with certainty with which we are all saying this won't apply to us here is shaken a bit by the bond case and that's all i would say. >> it i appreciate that. i'm simply saying as in the other case under the honor services case that has nothing to do with the treaty. the supreme court found the elements to prosecute people was an overreach and he can't protect against bad until you get the supreme court which is why we have the supreme court. and i do think 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 so in that respect it's a little

different. senator durbin. >> 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 we work out this bond case and i would say to professor and mr. thornburgh there is a clear distinction here. the bond case has not been raised under the treaty, the convention when it comes to chemical weapons. this case is being prosecuted under the implementation act, a separate act of congress implementing the treaty. two different things. so when we come to the disability act what is the implementation at under the convention for disabilities? there is none. the only implementation act is the americans with disabilities act which has been on the books for 20 years. and we tested that for 20 years.

has it eliminated homeschooling mr. farah's? i don't think so. has it mandated abortion across america? dr. yoshihara? no it hasn't. the americans with disabilities act is the implementing act that we adopted ahead of the treaty for disabilities. the bond case is dealing with the implementation act on the convention of weapons treaties. two separate actions by congress one of ratifying convention on chemical weapons and two passing a law on the implementation act, the loss law of the land. now the supreme court decided that law is proper. so conflating these two and saying it's all about the same thing. one of our scholarly colleagues the junior senator from texas said in a piece in the "washington post" if the supreme court concludes the treaty can be used to prosecute americans regardless of their constitutional rights around clarifications.

the prosecution is not under a treaty. the prosecution is under the implementation act. it's different. it's a law of congress. i am just stopped cold here with this argument by mr. farah's that the americans with disabilities act is going to putting into homeschooling in america. is that your position? >> that's not my position. my position is that the treaty changes the legal requirements of this country. it's not correct to say that there is no duty to change american law in accordance with the treaty so since i believe there will be required to be an implementation act that complies with the requirements of the treaty i think at that point in time that's going to do one of the problems that will arise. not the ada. >> mr. fares the fact that the administration is not asking for an implementation act and made it clear it's not seeking it because the americans with disabilities act already is controlling and has been extensively litigated since disability standards in our

country which are higher than any in the world don't you find that convincing? >> that same and is prosecuting the homeschooling family to try to expel it from united states who came here -- the under the americans with disabilities act? >> under our law of asylum but the question in the case that is pending is also pending before the supreme court. >> let me just say mr. farris -- >> you haven't let me answer the question. >> i don't think you can answer. >> the convention with disabilities has a different legal standard than the ada. there are numerous disability organizations that say so. i include their citations in my written testimony. i'm not the only one who says that. the crpd committee agrees with me. >> it what city mr. fares if we are going to have a battle of the organizations supporting in not supporting as i think we are going to prevail because we have

mainstream disability organizatorganizat ions across america who are supporting the adoption of this convention of disabilities. i struggle with the notion that we are somehow going to stop this effort, this effort to extend the rights to disabled around the world for fear of something which you can't even clearly articulate when it comes to homeschooling. mr. ridge says semidon't know where the call it -- secretary that we have been friends above capacities. he supports homeschooling and i do too. this is not going to affect homeschoohomeschoo ling and the americans disabilities act for 20 years has not affected homeschooling and i yield back my time. >> senator mccain who i want to extend my appreciation for his advocacy from the last effort and in this effort has been an invaluable voice in this regard. >> thank you mr. chairman and i think all the witnesses and i is actually think thornburgh and

tom ridge. i think you prefer governor to those others don't you? [laughter] i want to thank you and i remember with great nostalgia today that then president of the united states herbert walker bush signed the americans with disabilities act into law in the white house and so many of our friends from the disabilities community were there to celebrate what has been -- i don't know anyone who doesn't believe the passage of that act was not an unqualified success and gave opportunities for some of our disabled community to get ahead in our society and have rights which they previously had been deprived of. mr. meyer, you made some very important constructive recommendations from my view on this legislation in your statement and i would just like to ask you a couple of

additional questions. on the issue of abortion, the resolution of advice and consent that this committee passed last year that contained the following understanding on how this 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's sufficient to address the concerns raised about what effect this treaty might have under u.s. laws and policies regarding abortion and how would you recommend we improve that provision adopted last year? >> well senator, of course i believe secretary ridge mentioned we live in a listed -- litigious country and one can't guarantee that there will never be a lawsuit that the convention creates certain abortion rights.

no one can guarantee the committee and disabilities will not take such a position. >> 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 reference to my written testimony or similar language that makes clear the committee's interpretation of the convention are not entitled to any weight whatsoever. or any deference from for example u.s. courts could go a long way towards ensuring that the federal courts are not going to be prone to following interpretations of the committee might adopt that for example they congress would find objectionable. the language he referenced and rud has made it clear it's not discrimination convention to a large extent it doesn't reference -- the language you reference

states there shall be no discrimination. >> i would appreciate specific language if you would submit to us. obviously abortion is a huge aspect and issue with many americans and may affect the judgment of some members of this committee so i want to close that as tightly as we can, recognizing that there may always be some challenges but, so i think you see my point. >> i do senator. i would be happy to read to the language on the addition and think that might help address the role of the committee. one might for example include language that states the night is its understand the committee's interpretation of the convention are not entitled to any weight apart from that given to them by states parties to the convention. one can imagine modifying that

specifically in the federal courts or one can imagine modifying that language specifically referencing the united states to understand there should be no weight given within the u.s. courts unless the united states has adopted the interpretation consistent with the domestic or seizures regarding the creation and international obligations. >> mr. chairman i hope maybe we can look at that language as we move forward. we need to ensure the pro-life community that this would not have any effect on present u.s. policy. 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? as you know the conventional the rights of the child, children in armed conflict, the optional protocol and 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 have not aware. >> would you agree that the senate can ratify the crpd in a way that protects the prerogatives of parents and reaffirms the primacy of the u.s. law just as we have in these other instances? >> yes i think it's possible that there's a package in rud that satisfies that. >> right now dca 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 and i mentioned to senator corker one can imagine on the federalism point potentially a stronger reservation to deal with it

better with some issue that these ruds are available in the ruds can be drafted. >> i'm out of time mr. chairman. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman to the witnesses. your questions have been help both. one of the reasons that i love being assigned to this committee as a new senator is the mission statement is simple. an american leadership in the world is the mission statement on the committee and that is combination of diplomatic and moral leadership and many witnesses have spoken to this. we have is a country shown great moral leadership on the issue of folks with disabilities. off the top of my head and with my research tool during testimony the rehabilitation act of 1973 the education for all handicapped children of 1975, it individuals with disabilities education act of 1990 americans with disabilities act of 1990 and their others as well but those are the four i thought of

off the top my head. these are significant and they really do set a gold standard for the world but i think it's appropriate for make it part of our brand governor rich and brag about it is mentioned in entering into this treaty will be good for our citizens with disabilities and it will be good for citizens around the world with disabilities but also to my colleagues i think it would be good for this latte, the senate and our committee because this is one of those issues where i think the thin diagram overlapping between the various partisan positions is near complete. i couldn't help but note as i was looking at the dates of the passage of all for those statutes with respect to disability rights they were all passed and signed by republicrepublic an presidents. 73 present nixon 75 ida and ada by president bush 41. this is an issue where it's not

what you normally see where republicans want to do something and republicans don't -- democrats donor democrats want to do something and republicans don't. this is about as a bipartisan issue as you find in modern public policy and american life. i think we have not sacrificed. i think senator mccain's questions to professor meyer and attorney general thornburgh and ranking member corker's questions about the drafting of ruds in trying to make sure we can solve some of the internal concerns that are fairly raised through that process, we should diligently make an effort to do that because this has been such a good example of the nation in which we have been together and we have exercised leadership in the right way that i don't think we should sacrifice not too nutty to continue to lead in this particular area so again to the members to testify today had received and mr. chair i yield back lifetime.

>> thank you. senator barrasso who has also been a strong supporter of the ratification of the convention. >> thank you mr. chairman and i want to congratulate you as well as senator mccain or the excellent op-ed in "usa today". i appreciate your efforts and i just want to thank all of you for being here today to discuss this important issue. as a physician has practiced medicine for over 25 years i've seen first-hand the challenges facing the with disabilities. every individual regardless of the obstacles in their life should have tendency to work live and take part in our society. the united states has been the leader in working to end discrimination and break down barriers that prevent the full participation of all members. >> senator want to thank secretary ridge for joining us and we headed to gritty had planed to catch so thank you very much. senator barrasso. >> thank you mr. chairman and

mr. chairman as we have discussed over 20 years of congress passed the americans with disabilitdisabilit ies act. this commission is based on the same principles as the americans with disabilities act of nondiscrimination and equal opportunity independence accessibility human dignity and full and effective participation and inclusion in society. the peep all of this great nation believe in these ideals and principles. it is time for a nation to stand up and show our commitment to these principles in the international community. i believe the commission offers united states a form to utilize our wealth and knowledge and practical experiences to influence other nations in recognizing the rights of the with disabilities. our nation has ever tended to help countries transition from isolation and segregation of persons with disabilities to removing obstacles and a and barriers which ends up helping our citizens in the process. this demonstrates our commitment to equality and a tendency for individuals with disabilities. this convention is supported by

more than 760 disability groups 20 veterans service organizations in numeric legion of veterans of one worse wounded warriors project members of the business committee including the u.s. chamber of commerce and former secretary of state colin powell supports the convention and chairman menendez i have an additional letter from general colin powell and i ask unanimous consent to have this included in the record. >> without objection. >> for a couple of quick questions. attorney general there is misinformation regarding the impact of this impact on children. as the image and take away children's rights and allow courts to interfere with parents decisions regarding their children? article vi does that require a national registry of children born with disabilities? >> the registry is anticipated by the treaty is similar to the laws we have in this country

which require birth certificates and it's taken note of in enrolling. interestingly enough many countries around the world have lacking that kind of procedure. it poses a real threat and many of the worst situations around the world. improper abortion techniques or infanticide so i view this as a signal advanced not to the u.s. because they think it's at the federal state and local level we have those but when you've read in the headlines about the kinds of things going on in lesser developed countries with dictators who flout the law, this is a very positive part of the treaty requirements that we can support easily. >> thank you. professor meyer in your

testimony you said having the opportunity to nominate an american to serve on on the committee and to appear before the committee is an effective way to make sure it does not become a vehicle for creating legal obligations countries u.s. interest. can you further explain why it gets in the u.s. interest to have an american serving on the committee created by this? >> as i suggested in my opening statement when the ways in which the committee can have a legal effect even though its recommendations are not binding is through the creation of customary international law. the committee clearly did not have the power to create customer law but have other states react to interpretations and recommendations that could be the basis for claim that there is international law. therefore the opportunity to the united states to appear and object to interpretations of the committee that might be thought

to defeat the formation of customer interaction. there are examples of this occurring in the context of for example the committee were the human rights committee has taken the position that certain rules are customary in the state department is taking the can the position that they are not. not ratifying the convention does not move the ability to object to the formation of rules of customary international either and likewise they are -- it would affect u.s. courts reduces likelihood that a u.s. court would find customary charge law but the answer to your question is the ability to have an american dominated american serve on the committee and the ability to actually engage in a colloquy with the committee likely affects the committee's work.

it may insure interpretations are consistent with u.s. interpretation. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator markey. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. we have represented duckworth here an american hero and she is in a wheelchair. we pass the ada that -- on-ramps for those wheelchairs everywhere in our country and it would be great if we could go around the world as well and know that we are moving in that same direction. and we thank you so much for your service. back in 1990 when we did the ada , i was the chairman of the telecommunications committee so closed-captioning for tv insuring a phone system is available for a deaf and blind person as well. in the 1996 telecom act extended that as well but then in 2010 i

authored with cliff stearns a conservative republican on the house side in mark pryor on the senate side with very conservative republicans we were able to pass a law that said everyone of these wireless devices had to have an on ramp for for the deaf and the blind. we had to negotiate with the consumer electronics association, this massive organization of thousands of companies because they had to sign off on it. and now, the deaf and blind can use these devices no matter where they are. now, wouldn't be a good thing if that was true for the whole world's? that all of deaf and blind had access but i would like attorney general thornburgh, to ask this question. what does it mean for the consumer electronics association of the united states to have the market open up around the planet for all these devices that would be available to hundreds of millions of deaf and blind to it he empowered to become part of

your economy? >> to ask the question is to answer it. >> but not in congress. the words have to be spoken. i understand what you're saying. you believe it is a self-evident truth that we are having this hearing. >> i didn't mean to be facetious but obviously there are markets that are unavailable now either because of the ethos of the governing process of the country in question or lack of resources or what have you but you have a ruling consensus about the desirability and usability of these things you see remarkable advances take place around the world which is the business we have to be in. >> the consumer electronics association has written a letter of support for the disability treaty stating quote the u.s. ratification of the treaty would encourage greater demand for u.s. companies skills and services as fellow nations begin to adhere to the new international standard. there should be no doubt in

other words that this is a great economic benefit for american companies as well. now of course we want to help all of those who are deaf and blind and that is the point of my law, to make that possible but as part of the bargain we have the lead as we passed the law first and pretty soon there's going to be every citizen on the planet that has one of these devices. wouldn't it be great if we were insuring that they were accessible to the deaf and blind as well because those devices made in united states already have to comply with that law. i think that would be something that we would think would actually be an art best interests. now there are several countries including china australia and argentina who have submitted reports to the disabilities committee and i understand the chinese admitted they have a long way to go to protect the

rights and interests of persons with disabilities. now if the chinese got serious about ensuring access for disabled persons that would open up a 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 ratification is a vote to support american businesses and to create jobs here in united states? >> i think that is perhaps why the chamber of commerce supports the treaty of ratification. >> right now, the only one from the united states sitting on the disabilities committee, if we have a delegate on that committee do you think that would help u.s. businesses to expand their markets overseas? >> yes. >> and would it not help in creating rules and regulations that would used in order to expand in other countries?

>> one would expect that. >> congresswoman duck worth. >> i think the extent of opportunity for u.s. firms is really underestimated right now. the adaptive device industry is a large one and we are we are not talking about just phones but wheelchair accessible buses grab bars for showers homeschooling supplies for parents who want to teach their kids at home. the range is tremendous and if we don't do this and american companies don't gain credibility as being the world leader we open the doors for other nations competing with us places like germany and iceland where they do have industries and companies that provide adaptive devices as well. we will lose some market share. we will lose our role as leader in the world. >> so annie sullivan helped helen keller by using her palm

to teacher but now we have moved from the palm to the palmpilot and onto the iphone and the ipad. that's the way you have to empower people. we are doing something good across the whole planet as well. we are making sure we give people the ability to maximize their god-given -- and without these devices you don't have the capacity to communicate and to be able to work. so this is now the essential ingredient of citizenship on the planet if you want to be a productive person and it makes it possible for the first time in history for every deaf and blind person to be able to only participate in the economy for their country and i think would be wrong to do that on a moral basis but also wrong to deny her own companies the ability to make these products and to create jobs here in america. you can do good and do well at the same time by supporting this

treaty. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator markey. i just have some final russians. mr. farris, you describe the disabilities treaty has the ideal quote unquote wedge issue for future clinical campaigns. is it because the treaty is such a good device -- divisive political issue for you that you've made some claims about the treaty that you have made? is that why you stated the treaty components have sort of a soviet agenda and your organization has made some what many of us see is pretty outrageous claims that the u.n. will determine how many parking spots are at american church's? >> senator, who wedge issue comes -- i believe that this treaty would be the first in the line of human rights treaties that would be coming before this committee. the convention of the rights of

the child senator mccain misspoke earlier. we have not ratified that treaty. i think that would be coming next. the convention against all forms of discrimination of women would be coming before that. i think this treaty is the first of many treaties that will be in this range. that was what was intended by that comment. on the parking space comment, i coach moot court and we have hypothetical questions in moot court and the intent to argue on venues. that is what i was doing. when there's noted definition of disability and to give this organization the ability to define disability anything is possible. it's trying to make an extreme case to show that anything is possible. >> i agree with you that you are trying to make an extreme case and by the way on the wedge issue you are talking about a whole host of other potential treaties. you were talking about the treaty is the story of washington gridlock and the "boston globe" author.

on the question of the parking lot reference which you yourself say is an extreme example your organization or the organization you are affiliated with parental rights.org has a document detailing the 15 issues she organization of such treaty. and reason number two pretty much of the top states the number of handicap spaces required for parking at your business private school will be established by the local government. and i would like to submit that on record without objection. so, that is why you know i can understand and respect your view even though i disagree with it but when a statement like that has made a think it underlines the credibility of the nature of how far one can take this treaty. let me ask you something else. in the disabilities article vii parentheses to the disabilities treaty, it states that all

actions concerning children with disabilities the best interest of the child shall be a primary consideration. that seems like an incredibly noncontroversial statement to me so i've read the testimony and read the testimony last year as well. can you tell me one example where the best interest of a child with disability should not be the primary consideration? >> yes, because the term child standard is a legal term of art that means the government is to substitute is judgment for that of the parent. >> that is your interpretation. >> i quoted for this are geraldine van buren who is the leading expert on international rights of the child. >> lets look at the convention says. the text says nothing about the states stepping into the shoes of the parents. in fact article xxiii describes in detail protecting parental

rights and the rights of the extended family to care for and to make decisions for children with disabilities. i am dumbfounded how you can make a noncontroversial statement and twisted into something that is rather sinister. >> senator, the iac cpr per text directly the right of parents in the upbringing and direction of their children. that language is missing in this treaty. if that were in this treaty we would in a different position. that is the historical practice. there is no direct statement about parents rights in education and this treaty and the best standard is a legal term of art that has been used by the german high court to take parents -- children away from them. >> this is 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 professor -- professor hankin is the watchers for your legal arguments and i appreciate that you have an lom from london for distance learning course. there are no comments permitted before the committee of approvals or disapproval. as a matter of law, the courts have no authority to ignore reservations understandings and declarations. as a matter of fact some of the most conservative lawyers professor curtis bradley and jack goldsmith concluded in psalm since the early days of the nation the president and senate have attacked a variety of conditions to their consent treaties. no court has ever invalidated these conditions.

and finally when you quote professor hankin you suggest he would not have supported ratifying this treaty. >> i think you would support ratification. a number of international -- internationalist would have supported it. they think it's good we submit to the united states to the supervision of the -- i don't but we at least agree on the operation of international law trade i don't disagree one whit with professor hankin on how he sees international law and operation could what we disagree about is is this good versus bad? i think american self-government is part of our brand we should be supporting. >> hayek re-with that and that is why you argue that the treaty creates obligations others do not see and you suggest the united states follow your interpretations in terms of ratifying the treaty. i think we have a fundamental

disagreement that under the constitution of the president and the senate determine our obligations under international treaties and therefore their reservations understandings and declarations of the resolution of the rising consent are with bind it. i'm going to ask unanimous consent to include a legal memo prepared on this issue to set the record straight by the power the embassy of ruds. i will close with professor hankin. he would have recognized that just because united states law is adequate to comply with the treaty is not a good reason not to ratify it. he would have supported the treaty in my view because it'd vance's human rights and nexus full participants in the treaty. the fact is the human rights institute which he founded and the human rights first organization of which he served on its board of directors both support the treaty so we just have a fundamental disagreement

by what in fact would be our obligations and what would be to reach. i believe that homeschoolers will be absolutely fine and i know that there is money raised on this issue and you know maybe it's a wedge issue but it's not going to affect homeschoolers. i think there's broad support for homeschoolers in this committee. >> thank you chairman menendez and ranking member corp. are for convening this hearing to consider the convention rights of persons with disabilities. i partisanship has historically been the hallmark of american leadership protecting the rights of persons and in particular the rights of persons with disabilities and i was proud to have had the opportunity to work with you and others senator mccain said after durbin udall arezzo harkin in our united's board for this issue. read occasion of the crpd will serve to solidify the american commitment to equal opportunity

for increased access mobility and protection of our disabled americans of rot especially our wounded veterans. by promoting the rights of disabled persons has supported a broad range of americans and i remain hopeful the senate can come together to protect human rights for all by ratifying the crpd in this congress. last year we missed a great opportunity to ratify the treaty and it's my hope shared by many of my constituents and evidence here today that we do not make that same mistake again. we cannot afford to miss the opportunity and i encourage my colleagues to participate actively in the hearings and join those of us who might vote again to ratify. if i might first congresswoman duckworth thank you for your service and your remarkable and inspiring story of perseverance and engagement continued service to our country. i was glad to be able to be here for your testimony earlier. in your view how is america's failure to ratify this treaty

actually impacted our leadership on disability issues globally? >> thank you senator. i thought it myself when i traveled to asia earlier this year where he went to talk to disability rights groups and talked about what we have done in united states. one of the first questions asked by folks in the room was america didn't go to ratify the convention and sitting in that room is the representative of the united states i have nothing to say except we are going to work on it and try to ratify it soon. this is our democracy works. but i felt it first-hand because i was in a room full of people who look to me to talk about ada and all the benefits and how it allowed me to recover from my injuries and live this life they lived. i couldn't do that with authority because one of the first questions i got asked, are you guys going to ratify its? i had egg on my face and if we

are going to lead the world, it's in so many areas. americans dominate the world's world's -- and the olympics are coming up. our paralympic and have a new infusion of veteran's, disabled wounded warriors who are paralympic and send because of them we are elevating sports around the world. anywhere there is paralympics they must make their venues wheelchair accessible. because of the participation of our veteran paralympic and send beijing i was able to see the great wall of china which was never accessible before. the way we can touch the world is -- we go into this with the lack of credibility by not ratifying this treaty. we should be at the head of the table and we are not.

>> mr. attorney general thank you or your support in this. what are some of the positive results of the crpd in the countries that have read it right so far it hasn't made notable progress in promoting accessibility and establishing disability stand were the congressman just spoke to. more broadly many countries have ratified and what difference has it made lex. >> is probably difficult to quantify this early stage precisely what differences have been made that you have heard today from any number of people and it total evidence of the change and the prospects for change they clearly will flow from our leadership role in this. i think a good project for this committee if my maybe so old on the answers to the very questions you have raised, i don't have any particular insight into this but i think

you have able staff who could perhaps put together a compilation from around the world of the kinds of positive changes and i would say with no compunction that will show a mighty impressive record. it's early in the game yet. if you use it as a basis for judgment at i would be greatly surprised if there weren't marvelous stories available to share with the public. >> the last question if i might mr. chairman. mr. attorney general and professor meyer it was in the last exchange advanced by mr. farris that were read to ratify the treaty we would be submitting the united states to the supervision of the international community. does that strike you as an accurate characterization of the impact on american said -- sovereignty that we would be cement into the supervision? >> i have heard that claim made

before and search the record for any indication that is either intended or possible given the current posture of the liberations of the convention in this body. i don't think that's a realistic assessment. it's a little bit alarmist and perhaps a good deal propaganda but this is not a country that is going to submit to any worldwide body showing her independence and any number of areas. why would we choose to roll over an issue where we have such a leadership role established already is unthinkable. >> thank you mr. attorney general. professor meyer's in your view would we be compromising our sovereignty by submitting to the willful -- see the characterization would be submitting ourselves to the supervision of united nations

would be an overstatement. the committee does not have any legal authority to compel any changes to federal law and provided there is an appropriate package of ruds i think we would be in a position to say that congress and the united states continues to enjoy the ability to decide what federal law requires. you and i would like to thank all the witnesses from the first panel and the senators who tested died earlier and everyone else was testified today. thank you for participating today. senator warner. >> thank you mr. chairman and i appreciate your inspiration and your comments about being an agent. i think one of the reasons we are all concerned about the legalities and the thrust, don't think there's anybody on this committee that doesn't appreciate the thrust of this effort but it's that we actually only pass laws and some of the countries we deal with that's

not the case. i know the general mentioned we are a country of law and it seems to me that all of the advocates for this treaty would agree that delving into the ruds so that we don't end up having unintended consequences is a worthy effort as we move forward in the next few weeks. is that correct? >> absolutely. they are the key tasks that have to be performed in the drafting of the final version of what is voted on because they are going to spell out the explicit guidelines that will endure long past debate that goes on in this body. >> mr. myrick seems to me you have a word some really constructive comments relative to some of the changes that may be made and i do want to say we would love to work with you to try to develop those and try to address some of the issues that were brought up. i know we talked about the

committee and its my understanding we would have a representative on that committee but it would be temporary meaning they rotate them we have someone on the front end. over time this committee can do some things to establish customary international law. i guess, is there a way in your opinion to inoculate ourselves from the evolution that can occur with these committees over 10, 20, 30, 40 years do the ruds that will protect us from customary international law that might be developed by committee's? >> there is a doctrine that provides a state that objects during the formation of rule of customary international law persistently does not sound by that rule. one can imagine an understanding that states the nines dates understand that the interpretations of the committee are not a basis for the formation of customary international law and objects to any rule of customary international law formed on the

basis of the committee's interpretations alone. i think that will lay the groundwork for the claimed claims the united states is not going to be found at any customary international law. the other thing and this is the practice of the state department is to monitor the activities of the committee and to make sure we do object in those cases in which interpretations of the convention or preferred rules which we find objectionable. >> so because the committee is a living organism some people have said look you have the ada standards for the gold standard today but as the committee evolves over time it could well be other laws have to be developed within our country. you believe, per what you just said that customary international law we could inoculate ourselves fully from that evolution and i see proponents of this treaty shaking their heads up and down. that would not be objectionable,

general from your standpoint to the advocates? >> no, it seems to me as was mentioned earlier on that one body cannot make rules that bind its successor in a legislature so there is going to be a call for oversight. the definition of disability under the ada has already been changed and affects -- has been in effect for less than 25 years so experience is a good mentor in that respect and that is why we have the congress and the courts and not some ultimate executive branch decisions that can be made. >> does seem to me that you read that was stronger ruds the issues that you are concerned about could be dealt with. is that correct? >> i have to say i am not optimistic that we can be fully and not leave from customary international law's evolving

because this is something that is international opinion so customary international law evolves internationally through court decisions such as the colombian argentina cases the jurisprudence in other countries. we could not inoculate ourselves from what the world opinion is. we can certainly make a reservation and an understanding on this. i know senator rubio had a very strong amendment the last time around that got watered down and that would be at minimum to try to protect ourselves from 25a in the treaty but again i'm not a domestic that a reservation would do it because the committee is already it knowing knowing -- ignoring those reservations. 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 pressured to remove every one of our recommendations steve to remove those

reservations would require congress to act to remove those reservations. >> forgive me, i wasn't clear. it is farce authority there are a lot of folks is spoken today that we are going to lose credibility many great -- mitigate credibility if we don't ratify. i think that is excessive. we will maintain our credibility. 138 countries have ratified without us ratifying. great bitten and. >> has passed the conference of an african a shins are making differences in embracing this because they have ratified it. even without us ratifying time and again i care when i met the u.n. from delicate to tell me you are the leaders on this. we understand you have not ratified that you are still the leader. again i think if we go down this path and go to reservations we have gone too far as far as i'm concerned because we already

have the authority, the credibility and leadership to make a difference around the world. the. >> would the work constructively with mr. meyer and others to do what we can to try to get to a place where these ruds alleviate most of the concerns you have? i know you have a concern for customary international law. >> so and dry would be happy to absolutely. >> one final question, mr. farris seemed to strongly disagree with you mr. meyer as to whether the issues that he is concerned about didn't address the ruds and i would like for for you a few words to address that one more time mr. farris and if you would mr. meyer respond to that? >> senator i think it's possible to write a rud that would address my concerns but i think the rud would be illegal under the terms of the treaty because ruds that are contrary to the purpose of the treaty are illegal so i think there would

that would be needed -- >> is illegal where? >> illegal in any court. the question becomes whether we have really ratified the treaty. the better view is if we adopt the treaty with the reservation that is contrary to the treaty that we are not a party to the treaty. her whole participation falls because we are undertaking it and pretending to undertake the obligation not really doing so. i don't think the rud that would satisfy my arguments with the legal for that reason. could you write something that was just on the homeschooling issue? perhaps. i haven't seen anything to date that has come close to that but given the experience of the homeschooling community in the last year with this administration on the case where it was interpretation of the international treaty law on the

best interest of the child standards the same term of art we are concerned back here, we don't trust given the fact we are -- by this administration now on the immigration issue on this very term of art in the law, moreover this is the same administration that told us if you want to keep your insurance policies you can. the trust in the source of the promises is not at the high level right now. >> if you would respond to that mr. meyer i would appreciate it. >> thank you senator. first to be clear no u.s. court is going to disregard a rud regardless of whether or not it's contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty. consistent with professor goldsmith i am aware of no instance in which a federal court has ignored a rud. the way in which ruds the

purpose of the rule comes into play is mostly another party might object that a reservation the united states made is contrary to the object of purpose of the convention. the united states, there's no way through its procedures they can end up bound by anything to which we have not consented. by which i mean it's not possible that some party objecting the reservation will be struck in the united states will be bound by the treaty without the reservation. either the treaty simply with continued not to apply or more likely the objection would be everyone would understand that the united states had entered this reservation gets also possible the committee at some point might opine that a reservation that states made was contrary to the up to defend purpose of the treaty but is with other treaties that would be unbinding and be up to the state party to advance that argument. >> so, we are the country that

has the gold standard and advocates would like for us to play a role throughout the world in helping develop that cool to set the gold standard around the world in a you are saying if we develop ruds in our opinion that absolutely inoculate us from any kind of outside issue outside domestic law and it struck down as being something that is contrary to the treaty than the whole treaty falls from our standpoint. we are not bound to other versions of the treaty. is that one point you just made? >> that is correct and the other thing i would add is there is no court that would have jurisdiction to strike down a reservation. this treaty doesn't submit to the jurisdiction of the international court of justice and in the committee doesn't have the authority to formally strike down a reservation. >> and i guess the advocates, one of the advocates, mr.

mr. general you would say we would be better off with the gearing and taking up this treaty and being down right this treaty with ruds that did that very thing and that would be acceptable to u.s. and advocates for us having those kinds of disk tumors relative to our own internal and domestic laws? >> i don't think there is really any choice because what we have exemplified historically in this country is a commitment to ensuring the world's people benefits and advances that we have made in our own country. i don't see disability rights to which there is a strong commitment going back to and preceding the americans with disabilities act is any different than the important principles that we have fought and died for over the years. i think clearly any strategy

designed to gut the ratification of the treaty would be unacceptable. at the same time i take it's entirely possible to draft ruds that are set aside during to most reasonable people in looking at what the problem is. is. >> mr. chairman thank you and i think all of the witnesses for your time. >> thank you senator corker. just one final comment. since we are developing a record here i can't let go of a different view than dr. yoshihara's constant recommendation. i'm disappointed you use it that way with reference to columbia's high court overturned the protection of the unborn invoking the nonbinding comments of the u.n. treaty but he says it relates to this treaty.

the fact of the matter is the columbia case has nothing to do with the disabilities treaty. it's a 2006 case. columbia didn't ratify the disabilities treaty for another five years after that decision. columbia case cites a different convention, a treaty to which columbia had no reservatireservati ons, no understandings, no declarations. by contrast how ratification should do so the treaties may not a self-executing meaning the treaty could not use as a basis for lawsuits in the united states courts. the u.s. supreme court has upheld the validity of nonself-executing declarations in the case of sosa versus alvarez mccain. so you know, we need to be clear about this, the suggestions we

make when we are creating a record and i felt the responsibility to make that clear. let me thank all of the witnesses for their -- thank all the witnesses for their testimony. i appreciate all the members for the thoughtfulness for which they approach the issue. i appreciate and i want to thank those who have paired with us and watch the hearing from overflow rooms since we did not hold this outside of the traditional hearing room. we appreciate your forbearance and you're watching the democratic process in the overflow rooms. the record will be open until the close of business on thursday and thanks to the committee and all of you. this committee is adjourned. ..