next, the senate foreign relations committee taking up the disability treaty. if ratified, it would extend the disability rights of americans to disabled people in other countries. the u.s. signed onto the treaty in 2009, but ratification the senate failed in 2012. this hearing is just over 2.5 hours. >> the hearing of the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. let me welcome our panelists and all of our guests who have come here today for this important hearing on the rights of roughly one billion people around the world with disabilities. let me quickly welcome three

guests. among them, congressman tony coelho, who has been a longtime champion of the rights of the disabled. let me also recognize ann cody, representing the u.s. on three paralympic teams. she was also nominated to be the vice president of the international paralympic committee. she understands it is not just enough to make the stadium accessible. you need to make surrounding restaurants and businesses accessible, and we thank you for being here or your advocacy as well. i also want to recognize a leader in the disability community in macedonia. she is here to learn about transportation and independent living systems, and having public standards allows her to live in the united states, and she hopes to make that a reality

at home as well. we thank you for your work, and we welcome you here. and i hope that what we do here will help you in your efforts. it's clear what we are here to do. ratifying this treaty will help in the effort to give every disabled person the opportunity to live and learn and travel without undue barriers. there are 5.5 million americans veterans with disabilities, and now it is our turn to fight for them, to have full access and equal opportunity wherever they go. 138 countries have already ratified the treaty. protections will not come automatically. it will take u.s. ratification and u.s. leadership to ensure the treaty's protections not only become a reality, but reflect american values.

from the u.s. constitution, the treaty borrows principles of equality in the protection of minorities. from the declaration of independence, it borrows the inalienable for the pursuit of happiness. and from the americans with disabilities act, the treaty borrows the concept of reasonable accommodation. by ratifying this treaty, we will be advocating for the adoption of american values around the world. at the end of the day, if we fail to ratify the treaty, the u.s. point of view and u.s. interests will be marginalized. we have heard from the state department that they have gotten pushed back in their accessibility advocacy because we are not a party and we have heard from ngo's who have asked why american experts should be consulted on matters pertaining to a treaty we have not ratified. american businesses, the greatest accessibility innovators in the world, have expressed the fear that the united states' standing on disability rights could mean

markets for accessible goods might not expand as quickly as they otherwise would, and in the future are businesses might very well have less success advocating for u.s. accessibility standards, creating the possibility that the world will adopt standards incompatible with american standards that have proven so. -- have proven so effective. we need to ratify this treaty if we are going to lead the way in raising worldwide accessibility to the american standard. as we embark on the first of our two hearings on the disabilities treaty, i ask my colleagues to look past the fear mongering some have engaged on in this debate. ratifying this treaty will not mean bureaucrats in europe will determine how many parking spots are in your church's parking lot, as some have claimed. our job as the senate is required to see through the smoke screens and see clearly that this treaty is about putting america in the position to help lead the world so that

everyone, everyone has the opportunity to fully achieve their dreams and fulfill their god-given talents. let me introduce senator corker, the ranking member for his opening remarks, and then we will move toward the first panel. >> thank you, and i appreciate you having these hearings so members can fully understand the elements of this treaty, and i appreciate you having a diverse group of witnesses. i appreciate my good friend kelly ayotte being here today. i have to tell you, the meetings that we had last year, one of the most moving moments in time was to have two senators, john mccain and tom harkin, talking about what they had done together so many years ago to move the ada law into existence, and so many things have occurred since then. we had a unanimous vote in 2008 on the ada amendments act, and we have continued to make tremendous progress.

i do think that last year when this was considered, it was not considered in its fullness. it was rushed, and we did not have a kind of hearings that it takes to ratify a treaty. treaties have a different standard, for obvious reasons. i am glad this year we are taking a more methodical approach to that. i want to say to the advocates of this piece of legislation, this treaty, it is tremendous to see the effort underway to move people along in this regard. whenever a bill or a treaty is passed, there are some unintended consequences, and i think it is our obligation to look at the effects that a treaty like this could have on domestic law. i am not one of those folks who thinks they're somebody behind every woodpile trying to do something. i want to make sure that we in

fact pass a treaty and have it have the relevant cred. i want to mention this to those who are here. when a treaty passes, there's something called rud on the front end. they are the things that we actually act upon to give a treaty its life here in the u.s. today there is a supreme court hearing taking place, arguments are being argued over a lady in pennsylvania who unbelievably was convicted of a law under the chemical weapons treaty that we put in place back in 1997. sometimes when people raise concerns, they are actually legitimate. i would just ask committee members to try to work with those of us who understand that we want to advance the rights of people who are disabled throughout the world. i want to comment i think that is good thing. at the same time, unless the rud

is put in place in the appropriate way, there are consequences that can affect people in various groups. i am neutral. i just proclaim right now i do not have a position on this treaty. i appreciate the energy put forth in this treaty. i want to make sure that we as a committee and hopefully as a senate get it right. we have worked with john kerry to see if there are ways to make sure that some of those unintended consequences do not come to bear. we have a scenario today where a treaty is taking precedent over the laws of pennsylvania and the united states, that someone has been convicted by a chemical weapons treaty that does not work for assad, but is working against someone in pennsylvania.

i look forward to a vigorous debate. i look forward to my good friend kelly ayotte's testimony, and i look forward to working with all to come up with a good outcome here. i yield. >> thank you, senator corker, and we to look forward to an honest and open and intellectually honest debate, and we stand ready to work with any member who wants to get to yes in terms of finding the opportunity and its reservations and declarations, and i look forward to that opportunity to achieve that goal. our first panel is going to be two of our colleagues, senator kelly ayotte who has been a champion of the treaty, and advocate for it, as well as working with us to try to

achieve the goal of getting the votes necessary. she is here in her own right as well as is speaking on behalf of senator bob dole, who is a great champion of the treaty and here in the senate. let me also thank congressman bartlett, who is also here from the house. thank you for being here with us. with that, our distinguished colleague senator ayotte. >> thank you very much, chairman menendez, ranking member corker, honorable members of the committee. i am deeply humbled to be here today. my primary purpose of being here today is to read the statement of senator robert dole, someone who was an extraordinary leader in the united states senate. he is someone who is a role model in terms of what it means to be public servant, and we all appreciate that he is a true

american hero with the service that he gave to our country. and so i am deeply honored to be here. i personally support what this committee is doing. the convention on the rights with disabilities is very important for us to work together to get this passed, and so i look forward to working with the chairman and other members to do that and to address any concerns that members of the committee may have. my primary purpose of being here today is to read the statement of senator robert dole, and so i will do that right now. "chairman menendez, ranking member corker, and members of this committee, i urge you to give your support and consent to the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. while i cannot stand before you in person today, i approach you in the strong hope that on your second examination of this important treaty you will again do the right thing and advance

the rights of disabled individuals from the united states and throughout the world. in so doing, i am privileged to join with over 20 veterans organizations, 40 religious groups, more than 700 disability and allied groups, dozens of you on both sides of the senate aisles, and many other prominent americans who recognize the imperative of the united state'' leadership on this issue, a leadership that will be imperiled without the united states' ratification of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. when this treaty came before the senate last year, it fell just five votes short of passage. in debating the treaty's merits, treaty opponents expressed concerns that the crpd would diminish american sovereignty, that through u.s. ratification,

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

another important characteristic of this august body. the opportunity it presents for policies to involve and be strengthened, as members work together in a bipartisan fashion for a greater good. this treaty, in a way that is both telling and unique, enjoys the support of diverse groups and serving a variety of interests -- republicans and democrats, veterans organizations, and disability groups, businesses and religious organizations. given the broad support, i hope those of you with reservations about any aspect of the treaty will work with your colleagues, whom i know are ready to work with you to address your concerns. if improvements to the rud's are needed, then i urge members from

both parties to work together on that. this treaty is important for america, because of who we are as a nation. it is particularly important, though, for a distinguished group of which i am a member, as i recall in my statement to this committee last year, i left world war ii having joined an exceptional group, one which no one joins by personal choice. it is a group that neither respects nor discriminates by age, gender, wealth, education, skin color, religious beliefs, political party, power, or prestige. so, therefore, as the importance of maintaining access for people excuse me -- that group, which

has grown in size since, the importance of maintaining access for people with disabilities to be part of maintaining life, to the access of job or education or registering to vote, to me this is not about extending a privilege to a special category of people. it is instead about civil rights. when congress passed the americans with disabilities act in 1990, it was not only one of the proudest moments of my career, it was a remarkable bipartisan achievement that made an impact on millions of americans. the simple goal was to foster independence and dignity, and its reasonable accommodations enabled americans with

disabilities to contribute more readily to this country. if not before the ada, and certainly after its passage, our nation led the world in developing disability public policy and equality. in recent years, many countries, including our allies in australia, britain, canada, france, germany, israel, mexico, and south korea have followed our lead. in 2006, president george w. bush took u.s. leadership on this issue to a new level by negotiating and supporting crpd. on the anniversary of the ada in 2009, president barack obama signed the treaty, a landmark document that commits countries around the world to affirm what are essentially core american

values of equality, justice, and dignity. u.s. ratification of the crpd will increase the ability of the united states to improve physical, technological, and communication access in other countries, thereby helping to ensure that americans, particularly many thousands of disabled american veterans, have equal opportunities to live, work, and travel abroad. in addition, the treaty comes at no net cost to the united states. in fact, it will create a new global market for accessibility of goods, and active u.s. presence in implementation of global disability rights will promote the market for devices such as wheelchairs, smartphones, and other new

technologies engineered, made, and sold by the united states corporations. with the traditional reservations, understandings, and declarations that the senate has adopted in the past, current u.s. law satisfies the requirements of the crpd. as george h. w. bush informed this committee last year, the treaty would not require any changes to u.s. law. it would extend protections in the united states to more than one billion people with disabilities throughout the world. president obama has again submitted the treaties to you for your advice. i urge you to seize the critical opportunity to continue the proud american traditions of supporting the rights and inclusions of people with

disabilities. years ago, in dedicating the national world war ii memorial, i tried to capture what makes america worth fighting for. indeed, dying for. this is the golden thread that runs throughout the tapestry of our nationhood, i said. the dignity of every life, the possibility of every mind, the divinity of every soul. i know many of you share this sentiment, and hope you will consider this treaty through that lens. in ratifying this treaty, we can affirm these goals for americans with disabilities. i urge you to support the united states ratification of this important treaty, and i thank you for the courtesy of your consideration. god bless america.

>> thank you, senator ayotte, for your advocacy as well, and our thanks to senator dole for his long-standing advocacy in this regard, so we appreciate you coming before the committee to express these sentiments. >> thank you, and i am deeply honored here to be as well with my colleague senator mark kirk. >> who we will turn to next. we welcome him to the committee, a friend, a colleague. i know that senator durbin wanted to be recognized to both welcome his colleagues from illinois. >> thank you very much. i will be brief. when the history of the united states senate and congress are written about the year 2013, there are high points and low points. but one of the highest points was january 3 of this year,

because it was on january 3 when our colleague, mark kirk, returned to the united states senate, determined to climb those were the 45 steps into the senate. he had endured a life- threatening stroke, three brain surgeries, hundreds of hours of rehabilitation, but he was coming back to his job in washington. for all of the negative and partisan things that are said, if someone could have witnessed that scene on the steps and watched your colleagues, mark, stand and applaud, it was a reaffirmation of not only what the senate should be about, but a tribute to you, your determination and courage. i was honored to come up the stairs with you, and honored still to serve as my fellow colleague from illinois. i will introduce congresswoman duckworth when she is on the panel. >> the floor is yours.

>> [indiscernible] >> if you would turn your microphone on. >> i would like to also say as a recently disabled american to speak for my fellow broken people, how important this issue is, and to adopt this convention. i would say that i want to introduce you to a constituent of senator durbin's and mine. steve bachus is a veteran of iraq and lost his sight in battle in that country. 27 years old, i want you to think about him. too often, we have a problem in thinking about our veterans as victims. they are victors. he is an ardent rock climber. he was one of the victors that tammy and i see all the time. we rehab a lot at walter reed, where in that room where we are

working all the time where 20 legs or arms missing. you cannot hold those guys back. i would say that this convention allows people to become victors instead of victims. >> thank you, senator kirk. we appreciate being with us and your advocacy as well. >> sorry, i will point out the projectile that hurt steve was made in iran. >> no more passionate proponent of trying to stop iran's nuclear weapons, as well as their acts of terrorism. thank you for that as well. i know you both have busy schedules. with our thanks to the committee, we will excuse you both. let me call up our second panel.

we have a large panel here. so i ask the witnesses to limit their presentations to five minutes so that the committee can engage in a question-and- answer session to them. the full statements of each and every one of our panelists that were submitted to the committee prior to this hearing will be entered into the record in full without objection. first, we have tom ridge, former secretary of homeland security and chairman of the national organization on disability to discuss his support for the treaty. i know that the secretary changed his schedule to be with us today. he is a speaker this evening in new york. we will be excusing him around 4:30. thank you for rearranging your schedule to be here today. i will leave congresswoman

duckworth to be recognized by senator durbin, but we have someone who has done a tremendous amount of work at the department of veterans affairs and whose personal testimony about her personal experience as a wounded warrior is invaluable to the committee. i want to ask richard thornburg, who is here to discuss the practical importance to ratification, and let me recognize his wife, jenny, who is accomplished in the field in her right. we appreciate you being here as well. let me ask dr. susan yoshihara, from the catholic families and human rights institute, professor timothy meyer, assistant professor of law at the university of georgia school of law and dr. michael ferris to join us as well as they offer their views on the treaty. thank you, all. let me turn to senator durbin. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i am honored that the witnesses are from illinois and also to say a word about our colleague and tammy duckworth. it is interesting how we came to meet. i invited her to be my guest in 2005. she came in a wheelchair. it was nine weeks after she had been shot down serving in the illinois army national guard, co-piloting a helicopter in baghdad. she lost both of her legs and there was a question about one of her arms. she came with her husband, also an army guard, pushing her wheelchair behind her. it is an incredible story. the most amazing part of the story is that in just a week from now, it will be in observance of her ninth alive day, the ninth anniversary of her survival from that

helicopter incident in the crash that followed. she has led such an amazing and inspiring life since. tomorrow she celebrates her first anniversary as a member of the house of representatives. she has worked so hard for so many people and veterans with people with disabilities. i am honored to count her as a friend and glad she can join us today. >> thank you for joining us. as i said, we will ask you to limit your remarks to about five minutes. your full statements will be included in the record. we will start with secretary ridge. mr. secretary. >> ladies first. >> we will start with congresswoman duckworth. i never argue with the secretary. especially when his testimony is along my views.

>> after that great introduction, it should always be that way. >> thank you. chairman menendez, members of the relations committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of the rights of persons with disabilities. i believe crp be integration is -- i believe crp d is integral in our goal. the number of veterans will continue to grow as we welcome back service members from deployment. we are fortunate to have many laws, the americans with disabilities act, to make sure they're welcome back with the respect they deserve. the passage of the ada showed a united america. republicans and democrats standing up for the rights of disabled persons. america has inspired many others to seek justice.

our laws do not follow servicemembers and veterans when they are outside u.s. borders. when veterans travel abroad, they are often jolted by leaving our nation that does everything to support or wounded warriors. i traveled to asia earlier this year. i saw how even countries are moving forward economically but not keeping pace with the necessary protections for disabled persons. disability groups i met with told me about the challenges they face in making public buses wheelchair accessible. the disabled the hidden, -- the disabled are hidden considered to be an , embarrassment, and not afforded the accommodations they need. it is not surprising when disabled americans travel abroad, we find ourselves mistreated and rejected simply because we are physically or cognitively disabled.

without u.s. ratification of the crpd, those of us who are disabled lose the ability to set an example when traveling overseas. blinded veterans have had their guide sticks taken away after being mistaken for weapons. people with artificial limbs have been told to store them. as one veteran who goes around the world recently put it, climbing the mountain is not the challenge. getting there is. many wounded warriors are returning to active duty service. they should not be limited by their disability as to where and how they can leave their impact on the world. we do want to travel, and serve abroad, but our service will be limited if we do not think lobo -- do not think globally about accessibility and how the u.s. can have an impact on this issue. the generous benefits provided by the post-9/11 g.i. bill that many on this committee supported have given almost one million iraq and afghanistan veterans the opportunity to further their education.

many will be unable to enhance their education with study abroad opportunities because of the lack of access overseas. it is sad that those that thought would find their own -- those that fought for our freedom would find their own freedoms restricted now they're moving on with their lives. accessibility abroad also impacts current service members. for those that have a child or a family member with a disability, the lack of access in the country of their duty station can the limited opportunities for their children or employment for spouses. these service members may have to face a choice between a career or leaving their loved ones behind in the united states. this is unfortunate because the department of defense provides many accommodations for the needs of military families. the dod will pay for homeschooling supplies and support for service members with families.

yet, if the service member fears stigma from joining the program, they are likely to miss out on the benefits it might have allowed their children's with disabilities to accompany them on enriching overseas assignment. for obvious reasons, the veteran associations all support ratifying this treaty. in august, i was thrilled to cheer on the american legion when their membership voted to support ratification of the crpd. we wounded warriors have done our job serving our country. many of us sacrificed a great deal in doing so. we did this because we believe in this nation. we believe our country should lead. the world is a better place when the u.s. steps up to take leadership and when it comes to improving opportunities for disabled americans, we want to work abroad. veterans believe we should have a seat at the head of the table. it is time that the united states reaffirms itself. we must stand as an example for

those around the world. we have done it before and we can do it again. thank you for your time. >> mr. farris. >> mr. chairman. thank you so much for the opportunity to be here. home school legal defense association, i am here in opposition to the treaty. there are three reasons i would like to cover in the time i have today. despite the claims to the contrary, u.s. ratification of this treaty does impose binding, legal obligations on this country. the statements to the contrary -- in thebased on course of litigation -- you would call naked assertions.

you do not hear appropriate citations to qualified experts such as louis hankin. expertse of the leading in the world on international law. he says in a different context, le seeks to ensure that it's adherence to convention will not require change in u.s. laws, even when they fall below international standards. if states enter such reservations, the convention will be futile. even friends of the united states have rejected to the object and purpose that are invalid. states is said to submit in --

are only further states. not for the united states. professor hankin has it right. this is a treaty. a treaty is a law. it is the polo test emotional it is thecal -- emotional and political --. do not hear citations to articles in the treaty. we do not hear considerations of the reports. we do not hear the legal analysis appropriate for analyzing the legal impact of this treaty. is duty of this committee not to determine the policy issues and the emotional appeals, but to determine what the legal meaning of the treaty is and its legal application in the context in international law and the domestic law of the united states. the ways the proponents

misrepresents the nature of the treaty is on the definition of disability. proponents argue the definition of disability is left blank so each nation can decide for itself what it believes is the correct definition. the committee disagrees. issuingrocess of general observation in response to that, but has issued concluding observations to about nine countries. -- china, chinese australia, austria come a they were told their nation's definition of disability was improper. they follow a medical definition of death -- of disability. definitionnce in the is important. rights definition

of disability, according to the committee, a form of disability law that permits you to take the situation of a profoundly intellectually disabled adult, pears it under the human rights under the human rights model would not be allowed to be appointed guardian of the intellectually disabled child. they would only be allowed to support decision-making rather than substitute decision-making. nations that allow guardianships for profoundly disabled adults that are intellectually disabled are in violation in the trees definition -- the treaties definition of disability. if we think we will not have to comply with the treaties standards, -- the treaty's standards, we are making a false

promise to the rest of the world. turning to the issue of homeschooling, i have been criticized by many in the press for fear mongering on this topic. i have never seen anyone write a legal analysis. it is simply conclusions. i have coached seven national championships that debate constitutional law. the legal analysis is based upon the failure of the crpd to include the traditional right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children. those provisions did protect the

rights of parents. of the child turned in the wrong direction and it is followed by the crpd. the treatyof supports and defines the educational duties in the war -- and the word parent is not mentioned in the education article of this treaty. the highest court in germany has held that homeschooling is banned under the best interest of the child. when a german family fled to the united states, our administration appealed the tocessful grant of asylum the family that i know were present. our -- that i now represent. >> i have allowed to go a minute and a half overtime. >> i'm sorry.

my clock isn't working. >> i will pause. >> secretary ridge. if you would put your microphone on. worn numerous hats in public service of our country. i want to share with you the story of my first public service role -- staff sergeant in southeast asia. poor hearing when i went in and because of age, diminished hearing since. aids, ii wear hearing am a disabled veteran. most of the 5.5 million disabled veterans can. i am proud to represent their cause. i hope that after u.s. ratification, and a lot of work

with other nations, americans with disabilities will no longer face undue burdens abroad. there is no greater example of u.s. leadership than on the front lines of armed conflict. service leaders like to check the value of equality and liberty. united states leadership council here in we have the opportunity to lead and to lead well. my fellow veterans recognize this leadership. and -- then major, american legion, and he wanted warrior project, supporting ratification. my dearest friends had a serious disability in grade school. i enjoyed her friendship, her smile, her courage.

my public service career has given me insight to sit before you as the chairman of the national organization on disability. i became chairman of the nod because i believe we have to be more committed as a society to give people with disabilities the opportunity to establish their own self-worth, particularly through employment. would no question nod come out and pull support of the treaty. od's mission is to allow people to have the same opportunities as their counterparts. will describe how the convention advances -- democracy benefits businesses opportunitiesce for americans with disabilities, worldwide. support the ada. it was born of a notion were values are grounded in the concept that all men are created equal.

whether you were born with one arm, down syndrome, or without site. , you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. when runt is strongest for, and by, all of its people. some have created inferior, but often -- legislation. other countries have not even attempted to meet our standards. do not know how to do it. part of theat being disability treaty benefits the u.s. and other member nations. this treaty will enhance, not lesson, american sovereignty. it is not bad to export our

value system. the u.s. will continue to lead the world in establishing a democratic model. i want to reference a gentleman behind me from georgia. he will tell you that he is --ablished in organization established an organization in his own country. he is working at the national organization of disability. looking atntry is america to validate his presence and economy -- is the quality. i urge you to support ratification of a treaty that will have an impact on americans with disabilities at home and abroad. it advances democracy in business and validates the value of people with disabilities. i respect the differences of our

nations leaders, but i stand firm that we must come together on a topic of disability. it does not know a political, racial, religious, or other barrier. it will touch us all at some point in our lives. ink may fade on the declaration of independence, it is up to us to ensure the words of equality are everlasting. although our own laws will not change, u.s. ratification of the disability treaty will value all men are created equal. thank you for the opportunity to share this testimony before the committee. >> thank you. me, mr. a pleasure for chairman and other members of this committee, to testify before this committee in favor

of the ratification. importanty is an component to and enhance disability rights. it will mark a major step forward in this effort and of someonerights billion men, women, and children with disabilities. theirack recognition of preeminent human rights. leadershipo confirm on the world stage. ofare witnessing a new area disability rights. includingcountries, the united states, has signed the convention. 138 have ratified its terms. i have been involved in the disability movement for a number of years. my son was brain injured at the age of four months in a 1960

automobile accident that took the life of his mother, my first wife. thettorney general of united states, it was my privilege to serve as the point person to george h to view bush to secure the passage of the the -- disabilities act in 1990. we have had the benefit of discussion of the provisions of the disability treaty and their impact on u.s. domestic law. most important to me was the committee's adoption of a series toreservations, ruds, clarify the scope and meaning of the come mentioned. treaty wouldy require no changes to u.s.

federal or state law. it would have no impact on the federal budget. the reservation on federalism within sure obligations we undertake under the convention are limited to the authority of the federal government and do or reach areas of the state local jurisdiction. the u.s. will not accept any mandatedn, except as by the u.s. constitution and laws of the united states. when the u.s. senate attaches , theseons to any treaty conditions become part of the treaty and have the force and effect of law. treaty by itses own terms, allows nations to add their own reservations during the ratification process.

the only limitation on the reservation process -- such reservation should not be incompatible with the object in person -- or of the convention. in article one, it states the purpose is to promote, protect, and in sure the equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freeman -- freedoms by all persons and to vote respect for their inherent dignity. toause the object is recognize and provide disability rights for persons with disabilities, the ruds fall well within this legal standard. the claims that ratification will undermine u.s. sovereignty are misplaced. this committee would have an advisory role and there would be no call for its being entered as a law under our constitution.

nothing in this treaty prevents parents from homeschooling. this emphasizes the importance and the role of parents with -- of children with disabilities. and of the children's parents with disabilities choose to homeschool. the convention specifically recognizes and protects the important role of the family. ratification of the disability rights convention is an opportunity to export to the world the very best we have to offer. this has gained us the respect of the world community to extend the world principles to hundreds

of millions of people worldwide who have no domestic protection. we must ratify this convention so we can fulfill the role of world leader that is expected of us. thank you for your attention. chairman menendez, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to present my views on the convention. i appreciate the high hopes my fellow veterans have. i do not share that optimism. while the treaty might help improve conditions of broad, ratification of the treaty will not help disabled americans here or abroad. secretary kerry addressed the u.n. hi summit on disabilities. he called the ada the gold standard.

nations like russia declared the united states is there will model. this shows the u.s. is at the table, and it is at the head of the table. i have been asked to address something in particular. i took part in the last round of treaty negotiations. there is no better example than -- way the u.n. -- rick disregard obligations and promote their own agenda. nations opposed this term throughout the negotiation. this large number would have ended debate. proponents had to work -- to purport to things like secret meetings to get into the treaty. many nations took the additional step of putting this in the

record on the day of adoptions. of allons, nearly half the statements made that day focused on reinforcing this. some reiterated that at the time of signature, believing it would be accepted and honored in good faith. since the time of adoption, their fears have come true. countries are being pressured to change their loss. in may, unicef announced it defines -- are not the child's parents can supply sexual information and medical services without their parents knowledge. bodiesights treaty ignore the content -- the consensus. sexual and reproductive health does not include a right to abortion. even before the disabilities treaty was adopted, treaty

bodies pressured 90 countries over 120 times to liberalize their lies -- the walls on abortion. -- the laws on abortion. company --pressured countries to remove their reservations. rights oftee on the persons with disabilities has taken up this practice and has russia and spain and hungry on their abortion laws. in theory, treaty monitoring bodies have no authority to interpret treaters -- treaties in way that alter substance of the treaties. the high courts of columbia and argentina changed their abortion laws, citing the u.n. committees

as authoritative. spain liberalized abortion because of this treaty. the world health organization's definition of reproductive health has been rejected for 20 years. these cases could reverberate in u.s. law. the third point i want to make is this is not isolated to this term. it is a problem affecting a wide range of policies that americans care about. system is in disarray. last year, the u.n. generally -- general assembly lost a process to overhaul the committee. the united states said that before americans give more money to the u.n. human rights treaty system, the committees cannot do business as usual. the reforms have to have effect. bureaucracies and

find ourselves at loggerheads on the purpose of the u.n. treaty system. do well to steer clear of subjecting the loss to our scrutiny. betterns are making life for disabled persons all over the world. our diplomats should wield american credibility when promoting fairness, opportunity for persons with disability around the world. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman menendez. unlike my colleague, i am not here to support or oppose the convention. i'm here to hopefully clarify the legal status of the work on disability committees. attorneyerly an advisor at the state attorneys

office of legal advisers. the purpose is to consider reports made by the states parties and then to make suggestions, recommendations, and comments on those reports. performing this task, the committee has to interpret the obligations that are created by the convention. these interpretations that are issued by the committee are not legally binding. the committee has no authority to compel changes to u.s. law. there is no legal authority for that. the obligations created by the convention are vague and no state party is able to form an opinion on whether it or any other party is complying with the convention unless that forms a more specific notion of what

constitutes compliance. states'ssible other parties will look to the committee. this role for expert committees and human rights organizations has led them to claim that they have -- that their interpretations are charged with implementing while not legally binding, are entitled to a sort of -- authoritative weight. this is not a term that is defined anywhere, nevertheless it is an authority that they have asserted. and they have asserted it, the state has always been clear to push back and point out these interpretations issued by these committees are not legally binding. nevertheless, this claim of authority remains out there and somewhat unclear five. -- on clarified -- unclarified. law is formed from a consistent

and general state practice but it does not require the universal assent of those governments that can be bound. therefore the interpretation could be a basis of customary international law. moreover, it is the practice of experts committees under these bodies to site to each other's work and interpretations of human rights laws when they are dealing with overlapping obligations. therefore it is possible the united states would find interpretations from the committee on disabilities cited against it another bodies.

therefore, if the united states does ratify the convention, rud's could make clear the committee is not the basis for reforming international law nor that their interpretations are afforded any special weight. this would go beyond the understanding incorporated in the ratification last year to make clear exactly what the added states' -- the united state's views are. i look forward to your questions. >> that is the first time i have seen a law professor not take his full five minutes. we complement to. -- you. [laughter] thank you to all of the witnesses for their testimony.

briefly, a claim of authority is different than authority itself. is it not? >> um, that's correct, yes. >> and in understanding or even a reservation as you describe would clearly create a noaa tas to any claim in the context of american law -- a nullity to any claim in the context of america law. >> it would be sufficient to ensure u.s. courts do not recognize private cause of action based upon the convention. simply notifying the claim of authority would not affect the ability of other state hardee's to the convention to adopt interpretations of the convention coming out of the committee. >> meaning other countries. >> other countries. >> secretary ridge, i understand you are a strong supporter of homeschooling. i am sure you are aware of the arguments made last year and made here today. can you speak to that issue?

>> i certainly am. during my time as governor, we saw a substantial increase in the number of children been homeschooled for a variety of reasons. i think my colleague, governor thornburgh, justin this issue in his remarks and frankly there are some families with children with disabilities who choose to provide schooling at home. so i do have a couple of thoughts on that. relying on the legal opportunity -- the legal reservations i have had a chance to review and the delay creation of the committee to graft on to the treaty that was considered last year, this matter is interest.

this treaty does not affect the ability of a parent to act in the best interest of the child. it is again according to people whose opinions i respect the fact of the matter is this treaty can't be interpreted to prohibit any parent from homeschooling their children. for me it is a non-issue. and i am a proponent of homeschooling. >> congresswoman duckworth, you come from a family of military veterans. you developed a close relationship with senator dole. you have served as an assistant secretary for veterans affairs. what do you say to the critics who say this treaty does not help u.s. veterans and what do you say to the assertion that it opposes the treaty? if you would put your microphone on. >> i would like to say my understanding is that amvest neither opposes or suppose the treaty. they are neutral on it but i will tell you the afghanistan

veterans of america, the blinded veterans of america recognized the fact that our veteran should have the opportunity to travel internationally, especially our disabled veterans. a set an example wherever they go. i mentioned our post-11 g.i. bill recipient, who would love to take advantage of foreign study programs so they can spend time in a foreign university. they cannot do that. when i have gone to visit germany and italy, and visited with our wounded warriors, i often could not take them off post on a pass to go see the sites downtown because they were not accessible. those who state they would not help really have to better understand the situation for our military men and women and their families. many of these posts are duty stations that are advantageous

toward one's career in the future and bring your family with you because you have a child with a disability, you have to make that choice, my career or my family. that is not a choice i want any service member to make. >> dr. yoshihara, many in the pro-life community disagree with you that the treaty takes a position concerning abortion. >> senator, first i want to clarify something, i never said the treaty would not help, u.s. ratification. i agree with the congresswoman these countries -- >> with you answer my question? >> it is true, the national right to life issued a statement saying that the treaty had nothing to do with abortion. in fact, we found that after that time the treaty body is interpreting that way. the argument is not with me so much with the committee. >> dozens of countries that prohibit or restrict access to abortion, including brazil, egypt, argentina, el salvador,

and ratified the treaty in some of the most fiercest supporters are pro-life. moreover, the president of the catholic family institute, which is your boss, penned an article entitled "u.n. disabilities treaty does not create abortion- rights." it describes in detail how the parties negotiating the treaty made clear "countries are free to keep their laws protect the unborn in place and urges other activist to stop arguing about the phrase sexual reproductive health." i would ask unanimous consent to include that article in the record. senator corker. >> i think the numbers of witnesses have additional material and i would like to ask whatever materials they have entered into the record. >> without objection.

>> i would imagine that every senator here on the idea of having a convention for the rights of people with disabilities would want to support that. i can't imagine anybody looking at something that might advance the rights of people with disabilities, i think people start with a great deal of optimism. it is my sense that mr. thornburgh and rideshare and duckworth want to see those rights advanced throughout the world and want to see the u.s. play leadership in that area. at the same time, you would not want a convention to have any all affect whatsoever on domestic law. you would not want a treaty, are you in agreement with that? it seems to me instead of maybe taking an approach where we try to look at people with concerns like that as enemies, the

concern would be to try to figure out a way to make sure you have a treaty that advances the effort that the three of you are here about and have done a wonderful job with and at the same time make sure the treaty does not have unintended consequences like the case, today the supreme court is hearing a case where this has occurred. my question would be to mr. meyer, ask you this question, we have the rud's issue which we will be examining over the next few weeks. is there a way, in your opinion, to write rud's that would absolutely ensure there is no way for this treaty to affect either the federalism issues we have to deal with or to cause a court to look to the treaty to actually affect the individual lives of citizens in the country? is there a way of us coming

together in that way? >> i think with respect to the federalism issue, the reservation could adjust the federalism problem you have identified. it could be drafted to be so much stronger than the reservation that was attached to the resolution for ratification last year. conceivably it would make clear what the enumerated powers of congress are and with that, any obligations that couldn't be satisfied with those powers. with the respect to the interpretation issue, a set of understanding could be drafted that would make very clear united states does not record any significance to be interpretations afforded by the committee. this would go a long way to addressing the concern that the

convention might be used to interpret federal statutes, including pre-existing statutes like the ada. the current understanding or the understanding attached to the ratification last year spoke only to the issue of whether or not there was the authority to legally compel changes to u.s. law. the committee does not have the authority to compel changes to u.s. law but one could imagine some language that might be helpful to further make clear the united states of court -- accords no weight to be interpretations of the committee. >> it is your believe the rud's we have in place could more fully be written in such a way that could be enhanced to make sure that these types of issues did not come up. >> yes, i think it is possible to draft rud's that would adjust these concerns.

>> so to be witnesses that had specific concerns about specific issues, do you also agree there is a way to address the concerns you have by writing the rud's in a different way? >> one of the problems with the reservations as has been stated as they can be removed. if that was our protection, i would assume -- >> they would have to be removed by congress. >> that is right. i would like to try to solve this problem but i can't solve every problem that might come up 20 years from now. but we would only be passing a law that solved this problem. you think -- do you think -- >> the supreme court did cite a portion of the lyrical rights covenant that we had reserved on. so there is precedent the preservation may or may not help

us in that regard. >> and if i could, mr. ferris, if you would answer the question. >> senator, i can't imagine a reservation that would be legally acceptable, that is consistent with the object and purpose of the treaty that would satisfy the reservations that would be needed to comply with the three positive witnesses. you would have to write the reservation to say this treaty shall not bind the united states to comply with the treaty and shall have no domestic legal effect. if you put that in, that would be fine. i would support the treaty. it is meaningless then. what is being argued is the treaty has no domestic meaning. treaties, when we accept a treaty, the only nation in the world we are binding is us. we do not bind anybody else. our ratification has no external affect anywhere. what is being argued is external political effect.

there is no record our ratification has that -- had compliance with other treaties. so it is a shell game of empty promises that are being made. we need to determine whether or not we're going to comply or not. if we are not, we should not ratify it because the number one thing the country should do with its obligation is keep them in good faith. >> mr. chairman, when i was speaking to dr. yoshihara and i said we can't solve all of the problems in 20 years, what i meant to say was we can't keep another congress from doing something else down the road. that was the point i was trying to make. i look forward to further conversation. >> let me make an observation, if rud's never have consequences, with the ranking member did has no consequence whatsoever. senator boxer. >> thank you, ranking member

corker, what an important day this is. i hope it will be viewed as a turning point. i really do. we all have our passions on a variety of social issues, issues that divide us deeply, really deeply. but this treaty is only about one thing, it is about improving the lives of one billion people worldwide, people with disabilities and 50 million of them living in america. ratifying this treaty is about making sure that when we, and this is something hungers woman duckworth -- congresswoman duckworth stated, that country can't say, hey, you failed to ratify this treaty so we are not going to listen to you. believe me, that is what is happening. it could help encourage countries like ghana, listen to what the human rights watch said about donna --ghana.

people are often chained to trees, concrete floors for weeks or months on end. they are beaten and denied food. forced to involuntary treatment. this is about helping to right this terrible wrong. and as far as veterans, how could we turn away from our veterans? our veterans are unbelievable. next to senators who helped me, you can't keep our veterans down. we see it right here. you can't. they want to travel the world. they do. we need to pass this treaty, but let's talk about what the treaty is not about. it is not about any particular health care procedure.

it is not about abortion. it is not about vasectomies. it is not about cancer screenings. it is not about dental exam or prostate exams. it is about making sure people are treated equally on all fronts. including a need to get health care. i want to place in the record a wonderful op-ed piece written by dr. bill frist. it came out today. i'm going to ask conyers woman -- congresswoman duckworth to comment on this. in it, the doctor discusses a part of the treaty that just as protecting the most vulnerable from discrimination, including reproductive health care. he correctly points out "in many parts of the world, people with disabilities, regardless of age, are believed to be sexually

immature or in active. the assumption to make them targets for rape and other sexual crimes while at the same time kind of logical care is withheld and considered inappropriate. in other cases they are sterilized or forced to have abortions simply because they have a disability. he concludes that the treaty language is a necessary provision to protect the disabled. he unequivocally states "the treaty does not create any new services not previously available or legally sanctioned. do you agree, especially with the assessment the treaty does not create any new services not previously available or legally sanctioned and any adopting country?

>> yes, i do agree with that statement. in the case of abortion, the word is never mentioned 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 the rest of the population in that nation has access. >> i want to make that case. dr. farris, you say you are speaking for this is a your pavements are contradicted by organizations that work every day to protect disabled kids, like the international council on disability who says "this treaty highlights the important roles of the parents in raising children with disabilities." and this organization says "nothing including in this treaty prevents parents from homeschooling. it embraces the spirit of individuals with disabilities, ada, and all disabilities,

nondiscrimination legislation." you argue the opposite. you once even said "the definition of disability is not defined in the treaty and so my kids wear glasses, and now they are disabled. now the u.n. can get control of them." if i say my opinion, that is nonsense if a child wears glasses and are considered disabled. i wonder what is behind your fight? i would ask this question for the record, have you ever tried to raise funds by telling parents this treaty will limit to decide what is best for their children? >> our organization is funded by membership dues, not by contributions. >> so you have never sent an e- mail asking for funds to fight this. >> no, the association works with rental rights -- parentalrights.org.

the answer is the treaty does not ban homeschooling. what the treaty does is shift the decision-making authority from parents to the government. that is what the standard is. >> that is not something i agree with, nor do any of the organizations. thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, professor meyer, are you familiar with the case being argued before the supreme court today? >> i am. >> can you speak to how that is relevant to our discussion today? >> to be brief, this person was convicted of violating the biological weapons implode -- implementations act. in federal court. it is the federal statute implementing the chemical weapons convention. what is at issue was whether or not congress has the authority to pass the chemical weapons and

limitation ac -- chemical weapons implementation act. the supreme court held that in some circumstances if the treaty power authorizes the federal government to make a treaty and it is otherwise valid, congress may have the authority to enact a statute it would not otherwise have under any of its enumerated powers. >> the authority of the obligation. i'm going to read out of the treaty that says it requires state parties to adopt all appropriate measures to implement the rights of the convention modify legislation, practices and discriminate -- practices that discriminate against people with disabilities. what am i missing? >> it seems like a strong obligation -- the state parties ensure and promote the realization of all human rights?

>> to me, i am hearing from supporters of the bill, this does not obligate the u.s. to do anything. sounds like it is a strong obligation. mr. farris, do you want to comment? >> yes, that is exactly the point. the united states is making a solemn promise in international law to comply with the treaty, despite whatever reservations, those have the effect of deciding which agency of government has the duty of implementing the treaty. the courts, the congress, the state, but the duty to implement the treaty is never extinguished. he have to implement the treaty or we are in violation of international law. does that mean somebody can invade the country because we do not comply with the treaty? enforcement of international law is problematic in a general sense. can they force us to obey the treaty? no, not realistically.

are we going to undertake a treaty knowing we are going to disobey it? that is not right. we should undertake a treaty obligation only if we intend to fully and fairly and completely obey it in good faith. what i'm hearing is we are not going to do that. when the united states pretends to ratify a treaty and undertakes nothing, it diminishes our standing in the world community. >> attorney general thornburgh, we recognize the u.s. is the gold standard on disability rights. again, what i'm trying to grapple with, we are the gold standard. i understand why it is in our interest to have other countries obligate themselves to meet our standard, i am not getting why we should be ratifying a treaty that obligates us to do things that are open to interpretation. that is my concern. that is the concern of those

that may not be in support of the treaty currently. can you explain that to me? >> i think so. the basic gap in understanding is what the consequences of rud's are. the treaty that is adopted includes the reservations and understandings that accompany it so when we say we are not going to do something, we have specified we do not include within the treaty as amended by the rud's, it does not mean we are flouting the convention. we are implementing it with the rud's in mind. that is true not only of the united states but other countries. >> if we are the gold standard, what do we have to implement as a country? >> nothing new we are obliged to do under this because frankly it draws on the ada.

>> again, what is the benefit, why does the u.s. have to do this? i understand why other countries, and it is beneficial to have service members ratify this and implement it, i am not getting why we have to. >> the u.s. is a world leader. >> we have shown that leadership. >> in order to preserve that status, as the gold standard, we simply have to share that insight we have acquired and urge the other nations of the world in a structured framework to follow that in order to ensure those countries and their citizens, who we have heard described today, suffer from the lack of this kind of statute. they're right to bootstrap themselves into a gold standard.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> he raised a question that many have raised and i think it concerns that deserves a considered answer. -- i think it deserves a considered answer. we will not impose any new obligations on the united states since we already have the highest standard in the world, our advocacy is virtue by signing on and ratifying that it puts us in the addition to get the world to move in the direction so that tammy duckworth or mark will be able to travel anywhere and have a greater likelihood that they have the access to fulfill their god-given potential whether it is in a job, business, advocacy and they will be able to achieve. american businesses who already lead the world in terms of accessibility standards, that will be the standard that others adopt so that the football

player from rutgers who has this big wheelchair will be able to travel other places and will likely be having the other access. that is why the ratification of the treaty expands our reach and advocacy not simply by reflection of looking at with the united states does but its advocates. it's a very good question that has been raised and it deserves a full answer. >> chairman, could i offer a few -- >> editor cardin and we will get you to work it in. -- senator cardin. >> i will try to leave you time. quoting from the written statement which i think is a very appropriate. you should not be so proud to think that we could not learn from other countries about how to meet the challenges of

providing even better opportunity for people with disabilities. it does not mean we change our laws. we learn how to do things better. that is part of being an international community in an effort to help people with disabilities. i also want to a knowledge my colleagues you has been a great help when i came to the house of representatives on this and other issues. tony, it's good to see you. i also want to recognize ms. roadhouse who is in the audience from maryland. she is a bilateral amputee and wears prosthetic legs traveling to over 40 countries and knows the barriers in study, work, and travel abroad. nice to have you with us. mr. chairman, and i guess general thornburgh, chairman ridge, i will give you the chance to answer.

we all acknowledge the treaty is based on u.s. law, the ada. we passed it in 1990. in 1991, the then chairman of the u.s. helsinki commission travel to moscow and became part of the moscow declaration document, which started the international effort to use u.s. law as the model to protect universally the rights of people with disabilities. the point that i would raise, the failure to ratify, i think, compromises the u.s. possibility to advance the standards globally. it weakens our own credibility. as the chairman and others have pointed out, it also compromises

very much american citizens other countries. we are certainly not in the same position as we would for the rights of people in our own country. your comments generally? >> i think regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, we all feel very fortunate and grateful that we live in the united states of america. if america was considered to be a product, and we do try to sell our product overseas, what is our brand? i think our brand is the constitution, the rule of law, our value system. under that brand and value system, there is the thinking of equal in the eyes of the law. to be the one you convene around that is elemental in nature the

rights of people globally with disabilities, i think we enhance the brand down the product by enhancing our self. we say to the rest of the world, let's think about it from their point of view. we're asking them to adopt the american standard. it's pretty tough to do. with the ratification of 100 plus countries, on this common issue regardless of where they are, they like the brand. they like the value system. they want to embrace the notion elevate the rights of people with disabilities. the gentleman behind me is from the kane institute for

international leadership, a remarkable young man disabled in 2003 and established an organization in the country of georgia. he's working on ratification and he will be the first one to tell you that georgia will see whether america ratifies the treaty. i suggest that regardless of where we are in the political aisle, we all have an interest in promoting america and promoting the brand than the value system has as much of a lasting impact of anything we could do diplomatically and there's nowhere better to convene and lead that discussion globally than the united nations. it's a very appropriate question, senator johnson. there is great value, globally, internationally. we don't sacrifice sovereignty or change laws to advance our interest and we advance our brand and value system. thank you for giving me an opportunity to share this thought with you.

>> if i could follow-up with regards to the case that the supreme court is currently hearing, mr. thornburgh, really surprised when you heard the federal government was using the treaty or convention in order to bring charges against someone against the chemical weapons treaty? were you surprised it was used in this fashion? >> yes. >> if you're surprised by that, what can reassure us that you will not be surprised that this treaty is used for a similar purpose? >> by that time, the supreme court would have thrown out the basis for it. >> the fact that it is even brought and survived

one challenge -- >> let me mention that it said the say the department of justice does not always act wisely. there are occasions when mistakes are made in the pursuit of cases and controversies that really don't rise to the level where appropriate. there are examples on the other side as well and that is where the department has rightfully stretched the law in these situations but clearly were not contemplated. i'm thinking particularly of the rodney king case for example where he was ultimately convicted under the federal civil rights laws, the police officer was convicted, excuse me.

it was a police brutality case, not civil rights, but we maintain the flexibility that we could use an particular situation where the occasion arises but i don't anticipate that happening on a day-to-day basis under a treaty like the human treaty. we clearly have to put some semblance of judgment and confidence into the judgment of our lawmakers and those of our lawmakers and those who execute them. they make mistakes. i think there is a mistaken the chemical warfare case is a clear example. >> governor ridge, were you surprised to hear that case? >> it was brought to my attention and i would not know enough to comment. i would say that based on the experience of an individual i respect enormously who is seated to my right, i align myself with his response. we all know from my recent experience as we have questioned them on more recent occasions and i don't think there could

ever be any guarantee that there would not potentially be any litigation. we live in a litigious society. someone may take it to court. we should expect better judgment. >> we should. we have a tough time legislating a lot of other things let alone judgment. we will never be able to do that. if you make perfect the enemy of good and you conclude that legislation will undermine this, i just have not drawn that conclusion from what i have read, but i cannot draw an analogy or comparison between the present case before the supreme court and this treaty. >> it surprised the heck out of me that the federal government was using this. it would also surprise me if it works its way through the supreme court and they agreed with the department of justice. having said that, when assurances are being made in

this hearing and elsewhere by those that this would never be used as a basis to hold anyone in the u.s. to account for this treaty, then that rings pretty hollow today when this case is being heard by the supreme court. i would think that it would behoove us, at least, to see. mr. thornburgh, you say you're surprised. we would all be surprised at the supreme court ruled this way as well. it would behoove us to see how they rule before we go ahead with this. that is just the way i feel here. i tend to discount some of the claims about the use supply and i have my own questions about

whether it is worth it simply because we are saying on one hand it matters a lot and on the other it really doesn't. what's the use of a treaty if it's treated like that? here, i think we are all surprised that the action at the department of justice here and i think we have to see how the supreme court rules before moving ahead. thank you, mr. chairman. >> just an observation. i understand the senator's concerns. i appreciate it. the justice department has prosecuted cases on federal statutes, not the implementation of treaties knowing far afield of what the federal government intended and it has nothing to do with the treaty. the supreme court turned provisions of what prosecutions were so you could never totally rely that the justice department is -- >> judgment will be affected at the end of the day.

that is the example of a non- treaty piece of legislation used in an inappropriate way for prosecution as the supreme court determined. the bonds case has been raised several times, and i think there is a bit of a differentiation here that should the considered. this involves congressional authority under commerce and other clauses. it would not be relevant to u.s. disabilities implementation because the ada does not rely on the treaty power. it was passed before the disabilities convention had ever been negotiated. the commerce clause analysis addressing the chemical weapons implementation is unlikely to be relevant to the ada. the statute has been extensively litigated in the supreme court. i understand the concern, but i think the right differentiation's in this respect.

>> if the gentleman would yield? the bond case has nothing to do with the commerce cause under the treaty here, but second, i would just say the certainty with which we are all saying that this will not apply to us here is shaken a bit by the bond case. that's all i'm saying. >> i appreciate that. i'm simply saying as in that other case under the honor services act, it has nothing to do with the treaty. the supreme court found elements of how it was used to prosecute people was an overreach and unconstitutional yet you cannot protect against that until you get to the supreme court which is why we have a supreme court. 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 the necessary and proper clause.

in that respect it's a little different. >> i want to continue this because we raise this issue as if it stops us cold. we cannot go forward in this disability convention until we work out this bond case. i would say to professor meyer and mr. thornburgh but i think there is a clear distinction here. the bond case is not being raised under the treaty, the convention, when it comes to chemical weapons. it is being prosecuted under the implementation act, a separate act of congress implementing the treaty. two different things. when we come to the disability act, what is the implementation act under the convention for disabilities? >> there is none. the only implementation act is the americans with disabilities act, which has been on the books for 20 years. we tested that. hasn't eliminated homeschooling? i don't think so. has it mandated abortion across america? no, it has not. the americans with disabilities

act is the implementation act that we have adopted ahead of the treaty on disabilities. this is dealing with the implementation act on the convention weapons treaties, two separate things. one ratifying the convention on chemical weapons and two passing a law, the implementation act, the law of the land and now the supreme court will decide if that law is proper. so conflating these two and saying it's all about the same thing, one of our scholarly colleagues said in a piece in "the washington post," "if it can be used to prosecute americans regardless of the ramifications could be alarming." he goes on. the prosecution is not under a treaty. it is under the implementation act. it's different. it is a law of congress. i am just stopped cold here with this argument that the americans

with disabilities act will put an end to homeschooling in america. is that your position? >> that's not my position. my position is that the treaty changes the legal requirements in this country and it's not correct to say that there is no duty to change american law in accordance with the treaty. since i believe there will be a implementation act required i think at that point in time, that is when the problems will arise. >> the fact that the administration is not asking for an implementation act and made it clear that they are not seeking one because the americans with disability act already is controlling and has been extensively litigated setting disability standards in our country which are higher than any in the world, you don't find that convincing? >> this is the same administration prosecuting a homeschooling family trying to expel them for the united

states. >> under the ada? >> they came here under the law of asylum. the question in the case pending, that is also before the supreme court. >> i don't know what -- >> if i could answer the question asked? >> i don't think you can answer because you want to talk about something other than the americans against disabilities act in the convention of disabilities. >> it has a different legal standard than the ada. there are numerous disability organization to say so and i include their citations in my written testimony. i'm not the only one who says that. the crp the committee agrees with me. >> if we are going to have a battle of organizations according and not supporting this, we have the mainstream

disability organizations across america who are supporting the adoption of this convention on disabilities. i struggle with the notion that we are somehow going to stop this effort to extend the rights to disabled around the world in the fear of something which you cannot even clearly articulate when it comes to homeschooling. mr. rich says, i don't know whether to call him congressman or secretary, but we have been friends in both capacities. what he has said, he supports homeschooling and i do, too. this will not affect it. it's very clear that it will not and the americans disability act for 20 years has not. i yield back my time. >> senator mccain, i extend my appreciation for his advocacy in this effort and it has been an invaluable voice in this regard. senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank all of the witnesses. especially mr. thornburgh and mr. ridge. i'm sure you prefer governor. [laughter]

i remember with great nostalgia the then president of united states, herbert walker bush, signed the disabilities act on the lawn and so many of our friends from the disability community was there to celebrate what has been, i don't know anyone who does not believe that the passage of that act was not an unqualified success. it 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 have made some important, constructive 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 contains the following understanding on how this treaty relates to u.s. law concerning

abortion. "nothing in the convention, including article 25, addresses the provision of any particular health program or procedure. do you think that is sufficient to address concerns raised about what effect this treaty might have on the u.s. laws and policies regarding abortion? if not, how would you recommend that we improve that provision that we adopted last year? >> senator, i believe that secretary ridge mentioned, we live in a litigious country and one cannot guarantee that there never be a lawsuit especially since the convention creates certain abortion rights. >> do you have suggested language that could strengthen that to lessen the likelihood?

>> yes. with respect to the role of the committee, i think the language that is referenced in my written testimony or similar language that makes clear that the committee's interpretation of the convention are not entitled to any weight whatsoever, or any difference, from example u.s. courts, could go a long way towards ushering that federal courts are not going to be able to prone to following interpretations that the committee might adopt that, for example, the congress would find objectionable. also, the language you referenced, the convention in general, is a nondiscrimination convention to a very large extent. it does not reference in particular the language or any particular procedure. it just states that there shall be no discrimination. >> i would appreciate specific language if you could submit to us.

obviously abortion is a huge aspect of this issue with many americans. it may affect the judgment of some members of this committee. i want to close that as tightly as we can recognizing that there may always be some challenges. i think you see my point. >> i do. i would be happy to read to you the language on the understanding that i think might help address the role of the committee. one might, for example, include language that states, the united states understands that the committee's interpretation of the convention are not entitled to any weight apart from that event to them by states parties to the convention. one can imagine modifying that, specifically referencing federal courts. one could imagine modifying that language to specifically

reference that the united states understands that there shall be no weight given within u.s. courts unless the united states has adopted an interpretation consistent with its domestic procedures regarding the creation of international obligations. >> mr. chairman, i hope that maybe we can look at that language as we move forward and need to ensure the pro-life community, obviously, that this would not have any effect on present u.s. policy. mr. meyer, do you see any serious restriction of parents rights regarding the education of their children as a result of the treaties that we have ratified, as you know, the convention on the rights of a child, children and armed conflict, optional protocol on children in armed conflict, i guess in armed conflict -- have

you seen any serious restriction or violation of the rights of parents regarding the education of their children as a result of these previously senate-ratified treaties? >> i'm not aware of any. >> would you agree that the senate could ratify this in a way that protects the prerogatives of parents to reaffirm the primacy of u.s. law, just as we have in these other instances? >> it's possible that there is something that would satisfy these concerns. >> right now, do you see sufficient language or should we have additional language? >> i think some additional language with respect to the role of the committee would be helpful in addressing some of these concerns going forward. i think, also, i mentioned to senator corker, one could imagine a federalism point or reservations to deal with the federalism issue, but i think they can be drafted. >> i'm out of time, mr. chairman. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chair. good testimony of the questions have been helpful.

one of the reasons i love being assigned to this committee as a new senator is the mission statement is pretty simple. american leadership in the world is really the mission statement of this committee. that is a combination of economic, military, and moral leadership. we have, as a country, shown great moral leadership on the issue of rights of those with disability. the rehabilitation act of 1973, the education for all handicapped children act, 1975, individuals with disability education act 1990, americas of the disability act and there are others as well. these are significant and they really do set a gold standard for the world, but i think it's appropriate for us to make it part of our brand, governor ridge, and brag about it in the way you mentioned. entering into this treaty would be good for our citizens with

disabilities, good for citizens around the world, but also come just to my colleagues, really. i think it would be good for this body, the senate, and our committee. this is one of those issues where i think the venn diagram overlapping between the various partisan positions is near complete. i cannot help but notice as i was looking at the dates of the passage of all four of those seminal statutes with respect to disability rights -- they were all passed and signed by republican presidents. 73, nixon. president bush. this is an issue where it's not

what you normally see, where democrats want to do something and republicans don't. this has traditionally been about as a bipartisan issue that you find in modern public policy in american life. i think we ought not to sacrifice that. i think senator mccain's question for professor meyer and attorney general thornburgh's questions about the drafting and trying to make sure that we can solve some of the internal concerns that are fairly raced through that process, we should diligently make an effort to do that. this has been such a good example and where we have been together and exercise leadership in the right way. we should not sacrifice the opportunity to lead in this particular area. i appreciate all of those who have testified today and i yield back my time. >> senator barrasso, also a strong supporter of the ratification. >> i went to congratulate you. i thought that was an excellent op-ed in the "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 who practiced medicine for over 25 years, i have seen firsthand the challenges facing those with disabilities and every individual should have an opportunity to work, live, and fully 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. >> i want to thank secretary ridge for joining us. we had acknowledged and agreed he a plane to catch. there may be questions on the record and a follow-up and we would ask you to answer them. senator barrasso, i'm sorry. >> as we know and discussed, congress passed the americans with disability act and this

convention is based on the same principles as the americans with disabilities act including nondiscrimination, equal opportunity, independence, accessibility, human dignity have a full and effective participation and inclusion in society. the people of this great nation believe in these ideals and principles. it is time for our nation to stand up and show our commitment to these principles in the international community. i believe the convention offers states a for them to utilize our wealth, knowledge, and practical experiences to influence other nations in recognizing the rights of people with disabilities. we have the opportunity to increase the removal of obstacles and opening barriers to end up helping our citizens in the process. the ratification demonstrates our nation's ongoing commitment to equality and opportunity for individuals with disabilities. this convention is supported by more than 760 disability groups, 20 veteran service organizations including the american legion, veterans of foreign wars, wounded warriors project, the u.s. chamber of commerce, colin

powell, and chairman menendez, i have a letter from general colin powell and rather than read the whole thing i ask unanimous consent to have it included. >> without objection. >> just a couple of quick questions. attorney general, there has been some misinformation regarding the impact of this legislation on children. does it take away parents rights? doesn't allow courts to interfere with rights with children? this article six specifically requiring national registry of children born with disabilities? >> the registry anticipated is pretty similar to the laws we have in this country which require birth and death certificates be taken note of

and enrolled. interestingly enough, many countries around the world are lacking today that kind of procedure. it poses a real threat in many of the worst situations around the world for improper abortion techniques or infanticide even. i view this as an advance not in the u.s. because at the state of local level we have these, but when you read in the headlines about the kinds of things that are going on in lesser developed countries where dictators flout the law, i think this is a very positive part of the treaty

requirements that we could support easily. >> thank you. >> in your testimony you said having the opportunity to nominate an american to serve on the committee and appear before the committee is an effective way to ensure that the committee does not become a vehicle for creating international legal obligations contrary to u.s. interests. could you further explain why you think it is in the u.s. interest to have an american serving on the committee created by this convention? >> one of the ways in which the committee can have a legal effect even though its recommendations are nonbinding is through the creation of customary international law. the committee clearly does not have the power to create it, but its recommendations that other states react and adopt, there can be a basis for a claim that there is customary international law therefore the opportunity for the united states to appear to object to interpretations of the committee that might be thought to give rise to obligations could potentially defeat the formation that the united states would view as unacceptable. there are examples of this occurring in the context of, for exame,