is using airport kioskss, assessing a gms, using teleconferencing facilities obtaining multimedia digital content through their computer or cellphone any time any place

of standard harmonization is absolutely vital to the u.s. and u.s.-based companies and we can see three reasons it can help. first, it embraces inclusion in a d a. and u.s. access ability standards so for the u.s. companies it is important to implement. these harmonize standards for investment in accessible technology and help us achieve positive return on investment. finally, it helps the u.s. ability to continue to lead innovation more wide as crpd country's interest the accessibility leadership and our ability to influence them is diminishing. onto the policy benefits it is no exaggeration to say that in many cases policies make markets. the u.s. section 508 is a great

example. prior to the enactment of the federal procurement policy the accessibility marketplace was not an investment priority but section 508, the buying power of the u.s. government have transformed the marketplace and played a major role in defining it as on a shoestring government and business requirement. u.s. ratification of crpd will have a similar effect. in addition by prioritizing equal education and technology for people with disabilities the crpd will create a larger talent pool of knowledge workers with disabilities enabling companies like ibm to hire the best talent and meeting requirements associated with in beijing policies like section 503 of the reactor. it is for these policy and harmonized standard reasons that ibm believes u.s. can solidify technology leadership in the burgeoning marketplace through

the crpd participation. failure to act will produce quite the opposite effect over the long term, citing ambition and dreams of people with this abilities, limiting market opportunities and jeopardize in the u.s.'s ability to influence the global access ability community. in conclusion, ibm is confident u.s. ratification of the crpd will create global marketplace school for accessible icc and reinforce u.s. legacy leadership decision as a champion for a full provide inclusion of people with disabilities. thank you for your attention. >> thank you, professor rabkin. >> thank you for inviting me, mr. chairman. i want to make three basic points and they respond to what john kerry was saying, this treaty will not require us to do a thing.

he repeated that over and over again. it will give us a lot of leverage on other countries so my first point is we should stop and pause over this. how could it be? they don't get any leverage on us, we get a lot of leverage on them. on the face of it seems a little bit implausible. if it were true our ratifying a treaty like this gives us leverage on other countries, our having ratified the conventional civil and political rights which we have ratified would give us leverage to make sure there is free speech in countries like north corey and cuba, both of which are public riots, it would allow us to make sure there is freedom of religion in china, pakistan, part of that convention. we should remind ourselves if we make a promise saying we are

promising it doesn't mean anything because you can't force us they can make the same promise in the same spirit, we signed on to this but you can't force us to do anything. this is a little bit optimistic because people find this convention that they will implement it. the only way in which it can beat american leverage if we twist their arm and say we can't expect you to do it, we should pause over that too. a lot of countries in the world have real serious problems, hundreds of millions of people don't have access to clean water and therefore they get intestinal parasites and their children get sick and we say forget about that. what you need are tactile strips, that is the most urgent priority and that is the most urgent priority because americans want to feel totally comfortable when they visit your country, they have real problems with malnutrition, problems with the literacy and we are saying

that is not important. your highest priority should be buying equipment from ibm and other american companies that deal with the problems of small subset of your population and a lot of the discussion today wasn't even about their population. was about our population. nine other countries, americans when they briefly visit your country will be more comfortable so that is the first thing. the leverage on other countries is really exaggerated. the second thing is john kerry said no problem for america, we are not obligated in any way. there are a lot of things in this convention which are not parallel to the ada which has a bunch of exceptions, for religious institutions, private residences, the convention does not acknowledge any of those exceptions. if we signed the convention we are obligated ourselves in good

faith to implemented but the ada is more restrictive than the convention. it is true you consider to be implementing committee we are not listening, we are america, we don't care, but a promise or good faith to implemented we are promising infected do more than we do with coffee and 18. what do you mean by disability? the treaty doesn't define it. drug addiction, a whole series of things which we have disputes about, do we want the right to respond that to ourselves or are we going to commit with the treaty is due, to say we will take advice to the implementing committee. and renew narration for work of equal value in article 27 is a big change, and it is in the convention. are we going to implement that? there are provisions for making

sure was protecting intellectual property rates do not conflict and unreasonable barriers to access to persons with disabilities. that means you shouldn't in force helping people with disability to get access to ibm products, why should the committee -- the convention is saying you shouldn't do that. the last thing i want to say is we have previously not ratified human rights conventions of this time. human-rights conventions we have ratified until now have been very basic american style constitutional rights like freedom of religion and freedom of speech, this is a step beyond that, this is more like the covenant on economic and social rights which we have through a succession of presidents said we

are not going there. the results will be an assistant to the human rights. if we ratify this convention we are saying anything and everything could be something brought to us in the name of human rights and we could commit to it and we could share with other countries what decisions we make about how to regulate our economy, how to take care of poor people or any kind of people in the country, it is a very big step and we should think about that before we say we will cross that bridge because we want to help the disabled. everybody in america, almost everybody does want to help people who have disabilities. do we want to do it in partnership with 138 countries? we should have the self-confidence to say we can decide these matters for ourselves. >> professor bradley, chairman menendez, ranking member corker thank you, a want to emphasize at the beginning i consider

myself a strong supporter of the desire ability of protecting the rights of disabled. i am proud of the laws enacted in the area for the americans with visibility is that. i come here as an opponent of the convention, strongly believe that when the united states ratify treaties it should be very attentive to how the treaties relate to constitutional standards and traditions, something the senate is always concerned about. is this a particular issue when it comes to human rights treaties, focus much more internally than traditional treaty, additional issues for the u.s. legal system. of particular concern, the broad and vague terms you heard about today, in the disability convention could be used in a manner that would undermine the federal nature of the u.s. constitutional system. to give you a couple examples

the convention refers for example to standards governing the care of children, this is a family law topic traditionally regulated in the united states under state rather than federal law. the convention addresses private and governmental conduct without any limitations that would normally apply to federal regulation of private conduct like requirements of a connection to interstate commerce. congress has brought authority in the absence of this treaty to protect the rights of the disabled and used that authority there are limits in the system to help congress to go with respect to the regulation of matters normally addressed by state and local governments. because of a supreme court decision, 1920 decision missouri against holland congress is allowed to expand its normal legislative authority when it is passing legislation to implement a treaty. a concern has been raised that congress that any future time

could use the disability convention if it is ratified as a basis for new legislation that would intrude in new ways on state and local authority beyond what congress could enact. the united states commitment to federalism depends on maintaining a national government of limited and enumerated powers and i believe this issue should be addressed. it is possible to address this issue with the pro preservation. i look at the reservations proposed by the administration that are not adequate. when you read those reservations closing what you find is they merely stated that the government is not required to intrude on state and local authority but in no way prevent the government to from doing that. those who expressed concerns about potential reach of the convention understandably more assurance than that. is not enough that there is a rare disagreement between myself

and mr. gray or the not executing definition which is an important one. all that does is prevent the convention right now all from being litigated. it has no effect at all on the scope of congressional authority, starting the day after the treaty is ratified for state and local authorities, simply different issue. the proper way to address the issue instead is by appropriately craft federalism reservation, that expressly disavowed expanding the government's authority beyond what is quite expensive already in the absence of the convention. as i discuss in my written testimony is this would not be the first time the senate would adopt such a reservation. i found three four examples in which the senate has properly attached a similar reservation, starting in 1951 ratification of the charter of organization of american states and some other examples in my testimony. these reservations make clear

unlike what the administration has proposed just to put one of them in my testimony nothing in the convention confers any power on the congress to take action beyond the authority of congress. that is from a prior were conjured -- said different treaty, something like that is clearly needed. the administration, as was encouraged by john kerry's testimony that the administration should not be oppositional to this idea and if i am reading his testimony correctly he seemed quite receptive to and reservations along the lines i am suggesting here. the administration maintains existing law is satisfactory to meet the obligations of the united states so it should not claim the need not only for new laws but laws that expand congress's authority beyond what it currently has and my sense is john kerry was acknowledging that. i address other each is in my written testimony about the role

of the committee and need for non several ability language. thank you for your attention. >> thank you for your testimony. there is a vote depending on the floor but i will ask senator shaheen to proceed with questions and take over the chair. we will come back, we think your testimony is very important and we would like to explore it. >> thank you to all of the analysts who are testifying today. i apologize if i missed your testimony and appreciate your being here. i want to just before i get to my questions recognize all of the veterans who are in the audience today. thank you for your service for attending this hearing and i hope at a time when more veterans such as you are returning home with injuries and disabilities, that we can stand

up and support your rights and protections not only here in america but around the globe. i want to quote the words of another veteran from this treaty hearing in the last congress when i was here. john lancaster, former director of the national council and independent living and what he said at the last hearing is very powerful, that we aspire to what is in this convention. this is what we are about as a nation including people, giving them free in, giving them rights, giving them the opportunity to work, to learn, to participate. isn't that what we are about? isn't what we want the rest of the world to be about? if we are not willing to say this is a good thing and to say it formally, what are we about, really? for me that sentiment captures

what i think this treaty should be or not just the united states but for the rest of the world. i wonder, if i can ask each of the panelists, starting with you, miss west, if you can explain how you think u.s. ratification of the convention would help to advance the goal of making sure people throughout the world have the same kinds of protections that people with disabilities have here in the united states? >> because we are a technology company, also of for profit company, we look at the world from the perspective that whatever we bring to the market has better for the people and our customers and also the business and in the area of

disability, because we are actually evolve in the technology to be very much human centric when we talk about human centric that means everybody can provide disability. not just the small group of people. aging populations, people who cannot speak 7 languages can benefit from this so we look at this -- is doing something not only good for the business and not just good for a small segment of the population but for the entire population around the globe. i do want to make a comment about emerging countries if they do face a lot of the issues like clean water and everything, you will be surprised the government understands and in many cases have more disability in their populations so they actually appreciate having technology from countries like the united states that held them to deal with it. it is not an either/or situation, we see this as

beneficial, citizens of the world. >> can you will elaborate on the impact of u.s. businesses if we choose not to ratify the treaty and have a seat at table what will happen on issues around standards, standards development as you mentioned, is it accurate to say we would be forced to play a more reactive role than to be proactive? >> this convention, 20 first century human rights convention the adoption rate has been very fast, we have seen firsthand how country that has adopted, together, in many cases forming committees, studying standards in various areas, in the technology area we are -- a different kind of thinking and

right now we still enjoy leadership and technology standard leadership so we are still able to apply some of our influence, where technology evolves very quickly, and by not being there, we will very quickly lose our ability to impact, it is not harmonized the united states standards that all the business would suffer because that means we could create different sets of product and services. and expand commerce. >> do you want to comment on that? >> i know john lankester, we are colleagues together on the board of directors of united states institute of peace. i don't mean to put words in his mouth but one thing on which we

would both agree is there are limits to what the united states can expect to do in terms of influencing other countries. one of the ways in which we can hope to secure a more peaceful world is if we understand you don't have to be exactly what we would like you to be. i am a little bit uneasy about having this openly -- we need to have international standards which will force other countries to buy american products. first of all i am skeptical that that is going to work and secondly if it does work and don't sing it will make us more popular. there will be a lot of resentment about that. we are basically saying to poor countries don't spend your money on things you think almost important, spend your money on american exports because there is an international treaty, it doesn't require us to do anything but requires you to buy at our stuff. that is a problem and we should be a little bit more uneasy about that than we seem to be.

>> that was not my interpretation of what i understood this quest to be saying. would you like to respond to that? >> yes. standards actually come about from best practices. in many cases especially american standards because we are a free society and people come together sharing their best practices and they are becoming international standards. other countries actually look to these standards because they know it is a combination of best practices so it is not a forced issue. it is not an action you impose on people, especially in technology area. it is a welcome standard because they don't have to spend time to go through trial and error that other companies or other industries have gone through so

i would say this is not an adversarial situation, it is usually welcomed very much by the global community. >> mr. bradley, do you want to comment? >> my view in between these positions to some extent my guess is the united states will continue to be a leader in the future and even if it does not join the convention why would that be the case? has the best laws in this area on the planet and congress will continue to make sure that is the case and the united states continues to serve as the good model regardless of whether it happens to be party to the treaty. having said that i agree with john kerry that the united states will gain some additional leverage both on the committee and more generally if it is the party to the convention. i do think that is an advantage potentially of joining the conventions of the emphasis of my testimony is simply that we should only do that if we are

satisfied we are doing it in a way consistent with u.s. law and particularly constitutional standards. >> one of the issues that was raised before, at a previous hearing on this treaty had to do with concerns that have been raised by some groups about home schooling their children. last year the justice department testified before this committee that the convention including the phrase best interest of the child would be applied consistent with current u.s. law and would not require a change to existing law. i wonder if -- as i have looked at the treaty, i don't see that there is a threat to parents who would like to home school their children, and just wondered if

that was a concern, is that you have heard about the treaty and what your thinking is, whether that is an issue. >> thank you. i believe i do understand that concern. one of the issues that arises when you have a tree like this, it is negotiated among a large group of countries, the definition can be very vague and broad, its implications can be unclear. communities like a home schooling community understandably wants some assurance about what the implications of this treaty will be. the main assurance they have gotten is assurance that the convention will not require much change to existing practice and law. what i am urging is that the committee and the senate can give more assurance than that and make clear that it will not allow >> reporter: about the

constitutional permit in terms of regulation about issues in the family and home schooling. in my view, the community has greater reassurance should be sufficient to address concerns as i understand them. >> i you suggesting express language that would address that? is that what you are suggesting? >> in my view it would be enough if the committee were to endorse federal reservations i have suggested which made clear the convention cannot be used by the government to expand its authority in any local traditional domain that would include the homeschooling issue but would not be limited to it. that should address these concerns about taking off the table the possibility they are worried about which is next year, that is when the convention would be put into force. there is intrusion that would not normally be allowed but would be a lot under the convention even though not

required. the general reservations i am suggesting would address the concerns and you would not need an additional one. some sort of understanding that is proposed that says this does not affect homeschooling but would be also quite welcome. >> you talk some what about how foreign countries receive the fact that we have not ratified the convention. i wonder if what you heard from a is a business leaders around the world is further concerned about u.s. leadership on the issue of disabilities, and the extent to which that might

continue to be eroded, in this session of congress. >> we see the convention as the means for us to really have a very efficient way of understanding market requirements, whether it is a developed country or at developing country. and by not finding the crpd, we will be in cases excluded from some of these discussions which could lead you to a solution. the business community, it is all about understanding the customer's requirement whether by country or industry. so we think it is very important that we be at the table and be able to lead from these discussions about different industry whether it is

transportation or banking core retail industry specifics, and that will allow the united states companies, especially companies that have global interests, to be able to continue that leadership in the world market and also we think that currently, at least in the technology area we enjoyed tremendous leadership harmonizing international standards and these standards are very important because they really allow continued leadership of the u.s. company in the global setting. >> i have gone notice they called another vote in the senate so i think we should take a short recess. hopefully senator menendez and senator corker will be back because they will be able to vote now.

i am going to have to vote. let's recess for 15 minutes and hopefully by then, they will return. thank you. very fast, thank you. >> thank you, senator shaheen. you got more time than you would normally get. i am sure you made good use of it too. our thanks for you carry in the interim and thank you to the panel. the testimony was all interesting. let me explore a couple things. dr. rabkin, i listened to your testimony. i understand you are in a position which i respect but you minimize in your testimony the notion of what the treaty can do. in your testimony, you seem to

discourage the idea of asking other countries to make facilities accessible to disabled people in order to make life more comfortable for american tourists who will probably be few in number and brief on their visits which is the exact quote from your testimony. don't you think as america, it is important for our country and for our government to try to create the opportunity for americans to be able to visit a dying relative abroad, to be able to do a sales pitch in another country or have a member of our armed forces abroad, and who has a family member with a disability, able to have these americans fulfill their god-given potential without the challenges of the increments that individuals with

disabilities find globally and increasingly less in the united states occasionally still in the united states even with the ada law. >> i am very sympathetic to people -- i'm not asking -- >> whether or not you believe should it not be the power and advocacy of the united states on behalf of its citizens to be able to enjoy what they enjoy and access to opportunity to become more global norm? >> we cannot make everything we would like into a global norm and i am skeptical that this is the right priority for us and if i could give you another example, a lot of americans have difficulties with foreign-languages. i include myself there. we find -- if everyone spoke

english -- provide us -- >> it is limitation. i am not sure it is a severe limitation but we cannot get every country to do exactly what we would like him to do. >> we cannot get every country to be at democracy. we do not stop from seeking to promote democracy globally. we do not ultimately wish that certain countries would move in a way that creates a security challenge to the united states but we send our sons and daughters abroad when we think the national security of the united states is at stake. if i take your argument to a logical conclusion i would in essence abdicate the u.s. role in so many different dimensions in a way in which we would not pursue our national interests. let me turn to professor bradley. i want to thank you, i read your

testimony as a hole in addition to listening to your synthesized version and is considered testimony. i look forward to hopefully engage in you, as i am sure senator corker and.com on the package, you raise concern about the reach of future implementing legislation for the treaty even if there is broad agreement that existing u.s. law is sufficient to implement the treaty and you raise concern that the advisory committee creates could invalidate u.s. roads even if the power to do that is not in the treaty. we adopt a broad set to address these federalism advisory committee power concerns and last year my description of it is we used the belt and suspenders approach to address these concerns but now we're in the territory of three belts and three pairs of suspenders and a

team of engineers to supervise the operation but if that is what is necessary i certainly want to entertain it. my point here is i get the expression of your concerns, and i want to ask you this. assuming we could adopt a set of ruds that would satisfy your concerns which may be the concerns of others as well. i am optimistic that we can. do you think that we need to wait until the bond case is decided to consider this treaty as some have suggested we do? >> thank you. in terms of what was proposed before my view is they are not belt and suspenders and already indicated the ones proposed simply say congress is not required to invade state and local but does not take it off the table and that would be helpful. on the committee is not possible to think they would invalidate the reservations. the human-rights committee already said they have that

authority. that was not in the treaty either. that is not addressed in the proposed ruds last year in the committee. that is two examples. >> evaluate the ruds to enforce something domestically. >> internationally at least. then the question would be what the united states would do if it is found to be not to have those ruds available internationally but the more general question is if we could fashion a set of ruds i am optimistic we can and listening to the secretary of state this morning i thought he sounded optimistic that we could and he seemed quite willing to add additional belt and suspenders along the line of what you were asking about. if that were done my view is that would not be sufficient if the language were really tight in the way i talked about in my written testimony so let me get to the core of my question, i hear what your concerns are reiterated and i get it. my question is assuming that we

did, that we worked with you and got to language that through you would satisfy some of our colleagues on these critical issues do you really think we need to wait for a decision on bond to accomplish the goal? >> i do not. it is possible bond case would cut back on the treaty power concerns that have been raised, they are not going to add additional concerns. as long as the ruds address those concerns will be i don't think whatever happens in bond is not what would change the picture. >> let me make one comment on one of your observations with reference to the human rights committee which attempted to expand the scope of its authority. the united states successfully pushed back and we made it clear before the committee does not have the authority on international law to evaluate ruds and the disability committee. any entity including the united

states congress. i know there is a concern about binding future congresses andy ruds have never been invalidated. to our knowledge in the history of congress, a future congress as mr. gray said could amend the american disabilities act. has once. we constantly see there's a great desire to change the president's health care law. that is one of a hundred examples i could give. there are a lot of things congress could do to a number of hypothetically bizarre things. they could seek to ultimately sell the capital for scraps, disband expressions of approval or disapproval are not in order. i am trying to get to the point here that i have great faith despite our challenges sometimes in the institution and the

american people who would say wait a minute, that is way off base. i just think in suggesting that we can look at whatever language is necessary. i don't think this congress wants to be bound itself in its actions by what the previous congress decided as evidence by those who want to undermine the health care law. the present congress wants to change what a previous congress did. that is part of the nature of the essence. only a congress might be able to change a future ruds or change the americans with disabilities act. that would go through the same debate that takes place in congress and get the appropriate majority vote in congress and signed by a president. so just creating some balance in that as a reality of any future issue is -- >> are largely agree with what

you said. it congress decided to amend the ada you could consider doing that. we need to recall congress use the regular commerce clause to enact the ada and i am suggesting it should return to those powers if it wanted to amend the ada. all i am suggesting to take off the table the claim that congress might extend its authority beyond even the broad commerce clause in ways that would address very local traditionally state law issues. that is the only issue i'm talking about, not the ability of congress to legislate. that would be a concern beyond the question of this treaty. >> because of this old case the says if you have a treaty congress could ramp up its authority be on the commerce clause. outside treaties you don't have that concern? >> the court would polk congress to the commerce clause outside the treaty -- i don't think we need to wait for it. many justices said, the solicitor general said the senate would not do anything

like invade the prerogatives of the state and justice kennedy says why do i see this prosecution? don't say we should depend on congress not doing things. let's take some off the table. >> the justice department pursued, was under an enacting statutes. it has been clearly stated time and time again by the relevant parties that what is the american with disabilities act is our enacting statute, constitutionally upheld end to the extent the government would have to prosecute, it would have to prosecute under the ada. would everett prosecuted it already prosecuted and may have violated the ada. >> it could be amended. >> anything we do could be amended. it is just a little absurd.

just a little absurd to think that somehow we are not going to allow a future congress to change anything a previous congress could do because as americans change majorities they do that for reason, they want to see a different course of action. i am not sure that can be foolproof but i get your concern. >> for those looking on, i know those who issue the bond case being heard before we act i am not the person who did that. i want to make sure people understand i am not that person and secondly, you always have a more considered view. the second thing i would like to mention, a number of members, were not able to be here today but our reading the testimony and some of them would like to happen to monday afternoon to ask questions. i know that is not the norm. miss the >> without objection so ordered. >> you yourself or legal

scholar, i know these gentlemen are, the point he is trying to make on this issue is not that a future congress cannot change was. treaties ability to affect the commerce clause changes dramatically the enormous, that is a point, passed each other in this last conversation and i hope it is something we are able to resolve. i am going to walk through a very bland set of questions and i apologize because again we are trying to work through the legalities here, your testimony spoke to these things, and if something happens down the road, we have that committee. can you describe how the crpd might alter the constitutional balance of power between federal

and state powers in areas that were resolved to the states? >> as i wrote in my written testimony, a treaty unlike existing u.s. law, state and local private decisionmaking it is not the fault of the convention. the convention is written to accommodate more than a hundred legal systems or the entire world, there are addresses of children and family law, under the domain of state law. and private housing decisions and public accommodation u.s. law make those decisions in part because limit on the federal government authority to regulate private decisions or things that are quite local and maybe the bond case will or will not change this character but there's a convention, thank you for clarifying my exchange that i had before, you are right

about that. the issue is not whether congress can change the law. they can use their regular powers to do that. we have case law that says if there is a treaty congress does not worry about any of its normal limitations on its authority. once you have a treaty in place you can regulate local housing decisions or private action in ways congress could never do and without some protection here there is a danger. that the convention could be used in that sort of way. it is a danger that could be addressed by appropriate reservation but it is important to do that. >> are the administration's proposed ruds on federalism sufficient to these concerns and if not how would you modify those? >> the proposed understanding, reservations are not sufficient and won't go through them at the

moment. >> are you referring to the previous ruds? as far as i know there are no new ones. >> the ones proposed last year are not sufficient. the federalism and private decisionsmaking simply say if you read them carefully convention is not requiring we invade skate and law poll law, not requiring we take over private decisions, no way to stop congress from using the missouri against holland idea any time it would like to do so in the future. i sense a lot of people are ok with making it clear that that is not going to happen and that needs to be fixed. some other things like understanding on the committee, does not refer to the problem we might strike down our reservations which some committees tried to do before

and senator and the dove -- menendez pointed out that in the last year or sake lawmaking on of the u.s. has come out and set against u.s. position that a monitoring body finds reservations are no good that we assumed it is bound without the benefit of those. it does clarify this in the ruds. >> assessing whether treaties expand power of government legitimizing concern about federalism even if the case may be decided on other grounds. >> the bond case highlights the concerns that get raised when you have a treaty and implementing legislation and senator menendez is correct that we don't have earlier legislation. the issue people are afraid about is what if we have new legislation and the senator pointed out we don't know if that will happen. in the bond case a lot of people were surprised that freed the

power that was supposed to do with syria or things we recognize is being used for really local crimes within a state. we are surprised, i would not be shocked if the senate were surprised that was what they agreed to in the chemical weapons convention because it is not entirely specific about what it is requiring and you may find congress or the executive branch applies them in ways the senate never intended and that is another argument for ruds to prevent that happening down the line like we should of done in the bond case. >> many of these questions have been answered in other ways and i want to have these for the record today but is it possible the ruds adopted by the senate could be overridden in the future? reservation against expanded federal power? if so how would you recommend to ensure the ruds we adopt are protected? >> we don't have examples of

where congress or the executives tried to go back on the ruds. i hope that would be unlikely since the condition of the senate's advice to consent would be included in the resolution. if we were worried about that i talked in my written testimony that it could be made clear in the ruds these are not severable and the way to withdraw them the john kerry asked about this morning would be to go back to the senate. i was understanding the secretary to be receptive to clarifying that one would need to go back to the senate to alter the ruds and i would support that. >> thank you. can you describe your specific concerns with the crpd with respect to sovereignty? specific concerns? >> i don't know if this will be specific enough for you but we ought to have a strong presumption that we get to decide for ourselves.

i understand the meaning of a treaty that we promise another country, we are with you on this. there have to be some basic limits about what we can promise. we can't have every aspect of domestic public policy of for grabs which is handed off to an international entity or process. i cannot think of a 3d that is at all analogous to the crpd. it covers a whole range of things about how all american government for american private entities treat other americans and we say we are promising the world we are going to do this the way the world thinks it should be done. we crossed the bridge when we start making those kinds of promises. if i could just briefly in relation to the discussion we were having with kurt bradley, the danger of the ruds is not that they will say we are

overriding it. the danger, this is totally foreseeable, likely. the monitoring committee and other countries will say wait, you promised, and when you promise you have to live up to your promise and you can't just say we had our fingers crossed behind our back, so we will experience moorland political pressure to abandon the ruds and it will be hard for anybody to say there was a reservation so forevermore we have that reservation. if we think we have leverage on other countries we should expect they would have leverage on us and it may make it hard to us to stick to the exceptions we tried to carve out with the ruds and that is a problem. >> you may have entered my follow what but the issues you raised can be fully addressed through ruds other than the last point. do you think the legal points -- >> there are two issues here and

one is can we anticipate every possible difficulty and provide for it in advance with ruds? if we are real imaginative and work hard. even then, there's the question what does it mean to ratify a treaty, we have 28 or 32 exceptions we are taking but otherwise we are really part of it. if we have enough ruds saying we are not part of it if we are not part of a while we pretending to be part of it. there is that problem and the second problem is on any particular one of these exceptions if the monitoring committee, the committee of experts says no, you are wrong, that is not valid, do we have the self-confidence to say we don't care what you said, we are america, we are doing what we want to do. do we have confidence to speak the way john kerry did? i was uncomfortable. i-man nationalist as he is.

i don't know french but it was very awkward. he said we don't have to do with thing. we don't have to do one thing. you just can't in good faith and her into a treaty and then say to the world you can't complain, we are not doing anything. we routinely have disputes in the w t o. doesn't change the law but when the appellate body of the wto says what you are doing is wrong we do change our law. i don't think we would find it so easy to shrug off international criticism particularly when it comes from the official committee that is set up to decide if we are in compliance. any one of these ruds we may find ourselves saying we are not supposed to do that, we will change our law. that is what bothers people. >> thank you for your testimony, all of you. thank you for having this hearing. >> thank you, i have a few questions for frances west. after all the time you spend

your we need your expertise. the main focus of the reason for this treaty is obviously to extend from my perspective the rights of fifty-eight million americans, five.5 million veterans to find it more likely than not that they will travel some place in the world for business, education, pleasure, and more likely than not, find themselves having standard of accessibility as we enjoy in the united states which is the world leader in this regard. that is the compelling reality your testimony is important. for example, the technologies, this is not about this, up american business, that is not the compelling reason, but everything we think about has

economic dimension to it. there is nothing wrong with looking at american leadership to the private sector in creating in the world standards that will have the citizens of those countries in july ayers standards for their own access ability. our technologies that provide access to people and disabilities a small niche market or large business opportunity? >> it is the huge market. it is at the beginning of the borrowing market. in the past few years with proliferation for example a smart phone, devices, put the access ability in the center before accessibility and sometimes people think of it as people with disability, hearing impairment. a cellphone bring to play every one of us can be situational the

disabled. you can be driving a car but want to read your e-mail. you need technology to read the e-mail through speech so we see the accessibility becoming what we call a humancentric technology and also think about aging populations in the united states, seventy-six million people, baby boomers. in china they will have three sixty-five million people over age 65. when people age, they immediately naturally will acquire disabilities. the market at the beginning of growth, this is one of those areas we truly believe we can do good when you do well. we have seen that play out in the past hundred years, we think the crpd gives a forum, gives an

opportunity to partake of this and do well and do good. >> you talk about the importance of harmonization of international standards when it comes to furthering the interests of the united states in the global market for accessible products. there has been some testimony about entanglement in remote international deliberations. in so many different sectors we are very active in international bodies promoting standards so that we can try to generate closer and closer to american standards that will open the opportunity for our people as well as our business to be globally competitive. >> the standard is very important not just for technology but for many consumer electronic, in daily areas.

harmonized standards especially based in many cases on american standards, definitely a positive and also very preferred position for the u.s. companies because they held to ensure we had the leadership decision, helps to reduce cost of good food and also in many cases especially access ability area, it really gives us that extra kind of moral benefit, technology in this case helps people with disabilities to better their lives and employment opportunities so it is a great example of american innovation, innovation that brings benefit to the entire world in general. >> thank you. i am glad we have that perspective for the record. let me close with a final

observation. you seem to be missing a major point of john kerry's testimony. you stated several times what the secretary says the u.s. does not have any obligations under the treaty. he didn't say that. what he testified to is we have already met our obligations under patrice so we need to take not so we need to take h we net ty we need to take no additional action to comply. peer administration today and another times has repeatedly stated before this committee that all legislation necessary to implement the treaty already exist, so therefore the conversation we have had about

what the ruds look like are important to amplify that and to make sure there is no views that would undermine that reality. the concern that the treaty committee could suddenly declare itself the arbiter of ruds simply doesn't in my mind hold water in the context of some of our history here. for over 20 years we have been a party to the international covenant on civil and political rights or what is called the c aicc aiccpr. we gratified that the number of ruds which are similar to those we include for the disabilities treaty. despite any effort by the human rights committee to expand its authority. ruds remain valid internationally as well as domestically, time and again our courts including the supreme

court, affirm the validity of the ruds to other ruds in general. i think it is important as members read this testimony and i am sure many well as they consider the judgment that they know some of that reality. .. [inaudle