first reported on the assassination. we take you live to dallas for a commemorative event from dealey plaza including a historian reading from some of the president's speeches at 12:30 p.m. and to boston at the jfk presidential library and museum for a musical tribute with james taylor, and the u.s. naval academy women's elite club performing selections from the president's state funeral. earlier today john kerry testified at why he was thinking it was important to ratify a disabilities treaty. efforts to ratify the treaty failed last year. this hearing is an hour, 20 minutes.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> good morning. this hearing will come to order. let the first start by thanking secretary kerry for being with us today for this second hearing on the ratification of the crpd, and i think, first, you have the thanks of us for the incredible work you have been doing on behalf of our country, and your presence today sends a strong message about the importance of this issue. we appreciate you taking the time to come back to the committee to support the treaty. we convene the second hearing on ratification, having received the support of thousands of people and organizations, all of whom are looking for us to finally take the treaty over the finish line.

we have received compelling letters of support and companies like adobe, coca-cola, nascar, and the consumer electronics association with over 2000 member committees. the u.s. chamber of commerce, and i believe the chamber is resented in the audience today, as is the u.s. business leadership network, which submitted a letter from over 50 companies in support of the treaty, including microsoft, ibm, at&t, merck, jpmorgan, and northrop grumman, to mention a few. i want to recognize former president and ceo of the financial services roundtable steve bartlett, who is here. when he was in the house, he was a leader in the effort to pass the ada, and we appreciate his presence. we received individual letters from 84 nonprofit disability and religious organizations like the

red cross, easter seals, and special olympics. not to mention sign-on letters representing over 1000 friends groups. we have heard from individuals, some not so well-known, and some very well-known citizens, like colin powell, a chinese human right activist, loretta clairborne, the president ellicott university, who wrote, university, who who wrote, "nothing is more american than recognizing equal opportunity for all citizens." so i think at the end of the day, dr. jordan's simple statement is in substance why we

must ratify the treaty. we have several petitions that have been organized by different groups with a total of over 67,000 signatures. and let us not forget what this treaty means to veterans. we have received letters of support from organizations, including the american legion, representing two point 4 million americans, and the veterans of foreign wars, with 1.5 million members, and i would like to recognize the national commander of the american legion dan dillinger, who is here with us today. everyone who supports that treaty is pleased with the realization the american legion passed in august at their national convention, and we thank you, not just for that, but on behalf of of a grateful nation to all of you who have served. thank you very much. we are honored to have so many of our wounded warriors of all generations, including from iraqi and afghanistan veterans of america. thank you for taking the time to show your support. you certainly have hours, which is one reason we should ratify this treaty as soon as possible. we salute you and we thank you for your service and your sacrifice. i am told we will receive a letter of support from former secretaries of defense.

the support from the u.s. military and veterans community has been overwhelming. and so i move that all of the petitions among letters, and written statements of support we have received the entered into the record tour for the depth of the support of the treaty that it has from thousands of americans on both sides of the aisle and every walk of life. without objection, so ordered. let me conclude by saying at the end of the day, ratification of the convention of the rights of people with disabilities is simply the right thing to do. i repeat what dr. jordan's simple message, eloquent, nonetheless is -- nothing is more american than recognizing equal opportunity for all of our citizens. with that, let me turn to the ranking member of the committee, and i particularly want to thank him for working with me on a process forward to have substantive discussions about

what the treaty means, what it can achieve, what are some of the concerns of members, both of the committee and beyond, and it has been an extraordinary effort to work with you, senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i appreciate the tone you have set in your leadership and committee members have set in separating and ensuring that those things we do beyond our shores are done in the most bipartisan way possible. i really appreciate the way the committee has worked together. i want to thank secretary kerry for being here today, and as i mentioned to some of the leading advocates just a minute ago, i think the ratification of this treaty really rests solely on the administration's willingness to ensure that this treaty has no effect on domestic law, no effect. the meetings we have had thus

far with the administration officials have been pleasant, but unsatisfying in that as concerns are raised, the administration so far has not shown a willingness to try to accommodate those. i'm glad the secretary is here. i am really so proud of the people who are here and the efforts they have led over the last several decades to advance ada and so many other significant measures that have had such a positive effect on the disability community. it has been outstanding. i think the hearing we are d last year may have been one of the most moving hearings that i have participated in, as we had

senator mccain and harkin out front with many others talking about the many strides that have taken place come and i really do think that was one of my high marks here in the senate. at the same time, people have said that ada is the implementing language, that there are no further steps that need to be taken domestically. we just had a case, the bond case, and i know there has been dispute over its implications, but it is a case that significantly points out how the supreme court or courts can in fact take into account treaties to affect domestic law. we saw where a woman in pennsylvania actually was being convicted because of a treaty that we had relative to chemical weapons. i know some on the committee have stated that the reason for that was that congress passed implementing language. that was an interesting argument. after this treaty passes, another congress can pass implementing language, and when that occurs it does expand -- it does expand the limits of what we now have at the federal government level relative to

federalism and other types of issues. i will just say to the secretary as he begins to testify, i would love to see the advancement of rights for the disability -- for the disabled around the world. i would love to see that happen. i would love to see america continue to play a role in advancing those kinds of things. as i just mentioned, it is absolutely incumbent on the administration to agree to very difficult language that ensures in every single case that a treaty like this will not infringe upon federalism and other kinds of issues that are very important, i think, to people on both sides of the dais. i think that this hearing will be more about substance and less about cheerleading, and i hope that the secretary's testimony will reflect that in his answers to the questions.

i thank you for being here and appreciate the chairman for having the hearing. i look forward to a substituted hearing. i appreciate all the witnesses who have come here today. >> mr. secretary, the floor is yours. >> thank you. mr. chairman, ranking member corker, members of the committee, thanks very much for welcoming me here to talk about the disabilities treaty, which i am very anxious to do. mindful of the comments of the ranking member just now, i would just start off by saying we are 100% prepared as we have been to work through what are known as rud's -- reservations, understandings, and declarations in order to pass this treaty. that is our goal. as we begin with a place that makes it clear that we do not believe this has impact among but we are happy to restate and reassert the law in ways that

makes senators feel comfortable, obviously. we want to pass this. it is not lost on any of us that only 11 months ago the senate fell just five votes short of approving this treaty. so more than 60 senators have already resolved in their minds many of the questions that are reraised again and again. we can go in to them. those days when we ended up five votes short, when people changed so it was closer, that was a rough day for a lot of us who supported the treaty, including senator mccain, who is hardly a newcomer to this issue and is one of the most eloquent voices for why we ought to be doing this. for why, to put it bluntly, this treaty is in america's interests.

in the after-action conversations that i have had with many senators, republicans and democrats alike, and including a number of who voted against the treaty -- you saw senator corker and others -- i even heard some real regret about what had transpired and the unintended message that the outcome sent to americans with disabilities, as well as other people around the world. and i heard from many, not just a willingness, but a hope that they would have a chance in a new congress to take up the treaty again and to demonstrate the important truth that senators from both sides of the aisle cared deeply about the rights of people with disabilities. so thank you, chairman menemdez,

for your comments, your leadership around this first hearing and be willing to come back at this important treaty, and thank you, ranking member corker, for joining with him in a bipartisan way to do exactly what both of you have talked about and trying to do here. trying to make certain that we -- and that is with an eye of trying to make certain that we air all of the concerns so that every senator can make up their own judgment in an atmosphere that is not clouded with procedural questions, as we unfortunately were last year. i think we all approach this renewed discussion, we in administration listen very carefully to all of you, and while we recognize most senators would guess, some senators were dissatisfied with the process and some are not prepared to support the treaty until they feel that certain concerns are addressed. so again, i repeat, i am absolutely committed -- i have said this to the chairman in

private conversations -- we will work with you on an appropriate reservation or understanding or declaration, as appropriate, in order to try to clarify something, if indeed, it really is begging for clarification, and we are not able to show adequately through legal cases, through precedent, through reality of the treaty itself that it has already addressed. i still believe what i believe when i tried to do this when i was chair, that the ratification of the disabilities treaty will advance core american values. it will expand opportunities for our citizens and our businesses, and it will strengthen american leadership. and i'm still convinced that we give up nothing, but we get everything in return. i say that again -- we give up nothing, but we get everything in return.

our ratification does not require a single change to american law. and it is not going to add a penny to our budget. but it will provide the leverage, the hook that we need in order to push other countries to pass laws or improve their laws or raise their standards for the protection of people with disabilities, up to the standard that we have already adopted in the united states of america, up to the standard that prompted president george h.w. bush and republican leader dole to pass the americans with disabilities act and indeed to negotiate the treaty. now, i am especially engaged now, obviously, as secretary of state, because having traveled to a great number of countries these last nine months since you confirmed me, i have seen firsthand the need for this treaty in ways that i never have before.

-- had before. it is not an abstract concept. this is not just a nice thing to do. it is not something that is sort of for the few. it really raises standards for the many, and there are countries where children with disabilities are warehoused from birth, denied even a birth certificate, not a real person. and treated as second-class citizens every single days of their life. the united states has the ability to impact that the passage of this treaty. 130 eight countries have already signed up to this. in too many countries, what we did here at home with the americans with disabilities act has not even been remotely realized overseas, and in too many places, what we take for granted here has not been granted at all. now, i will never forget my visit recently to a sports

rehabilitation center for the disabled veterans in bogota, a center we support with funds from usaid, and i met police officers who were injured by an aids, soldiers wounded by ied's, volunteers caught in the tragic shootouts that take place over their efforts to help us together to enforce global international narcotics objectives. these brave men and women have risked life and limb and they have lost friends in battle, and yet there is a whole world that they are unable to access today, because of their disabilities, which they received as they undertook duties shared by our hopes and aspirations with respect to the enforcement of law. moments like this really clarify for me the work that we have to do to export our gold standard. the americans with disabilities

act is the global gold standard. we should be extraordinary proud of it. we are. but i would hate to see us squander our credibility in this issue around the world because we are unwilling to embrace what we actually began, this initiative. when i tell other countries that they ought to do what we have done, as i am often reminded that we have not done we have said we are going to do, we have not joined the treaty ourselves. it is pretty hard to leverage people when you are on the outside. so those 138 parties to the treaty, when they convene, we miss out on the opportunity to use our expertise, to leverage what we have done in america and put it on the table. we lose out on that. we are not at the table. we cannot share our experience and use our experience to broaden theirs. and other countries come to

discuss education, accessibility, and employment standards for people with disabilities, areas where the united states has developed the greatest expertise, we have been excluded because we are not a party to the treaty. and the bottom line is that when we are not there, other countries with a different and unfortunately often a lower standard, a lower threshold, wind up filling the void, and that is the best people get. i do not want to see us continue to take ourselves out of the game. no member of the senate should want us to voluntarily take ourselves out of this. and remaining on the sidelines jeopardizes our role in shaping the future of disability rights in other countries. and we need to help push the door open for other countries to benefit, not just from our example, but from our guidance and expertise, our experience. joining the treaty is the most powerful step we can take to gain all of those upsides. and do not take my word for it.

in a letter to this committee last month, former secretary of state colin powell said it best. he wrote, "if the senate does not approve this treaty, the united states will continue to be excluded from the most important global platform for the implementation of best practices in disability rights abroad." this is about something very real. look at the numbers of people who are here today and the numbers of groups represented by me here today. every one of them represents five thousands more people for whom this is very real. is about things that you could see and you could touch and then make a difference to people's lives. i'm talking about sidewalks without curb cuts. try managing that. public buildings with no accessible bathrooms. restaurants, stores, hotels, and universities without ramps or elevator access. buses without lifts.

train platforms without tactile strips that keep you from going over onto the tracks. we cannot afford to ignore these barriers as problems that somehow affect other countries and do not affect us. they are present all over the world, including some of the top destinations for americans traveling abroad for work or for study or for pleasure. and we are not using all of our power and influence to change things for the better if we do not join this treaty. i have asked you to think about what this treaty means. it means something for everybody with disabilities. i particularly want to ask you to think about what it means to our veterans with disabilities. last year i met a fellow named dan. he is a west point graduate, retired u.s. army captain, and afghanistan war veteran. like many of us, dan never

thought he would have a disability or be an advocate for people with disabilities. but his life changed instantly when he stepped on the trigger of an ied and he lost both of his legs. dan speaks in absolutely clear, searing, stark terms about the difficulty, the fear, the embarrassment of negotiating obstacles abroad as a person with a disability. and he experienced this obstacles first hand when he traveled to south africa, and he told me last year, he told all this, because he shared his us money with this committee, "the advantages that we take for granted here at home that allow people like me to live fulfilling, independent lives do not exist in much of the rest of the world." let me tell you the good news. dan is now a student at stanford business school. and he wants to be able to take advantage of every possible opportunity. he can do that in the united states because of the ada and

other disability rights laws. but dan will tell you, not me, he will tell you, as he said last year, as he experienced on a trip abroad, his opportunities in the increasingly important international workplace are hindered by his disability and it is a disability he acquired by fighting overseas on her -- on our behalf. he is asking us not to fight for him and a lot of folks like him on their behalf. there are an estimated 5.5 million disabled veterans like dan and many of the veterans and their beneficiaries in the post- 9/11 g.i. bill have a disability, and many of them are unable to study abroad because of poor accessibility standards in schools overseas. i have met with recovering veterans at home in massachusetts. i have met with them at walter reed. they want very simply a world where they can be independent, go out and fend for themselves, where they can travel abroad to

work or study or vacation, and they should never have to worry about whether the disabilities sustained fighting on our behalf are going to prevent them from accessing the classroom, a workplace, a hotel, or transportation overseas. like all people with disabilities, they deserve a world where they can fully participate in the global economy on equal terms without fear of discrimination or loss of dignity. joining the disabilities treaty will also expand opportunities for american students with disabilities, who need to be able study abroad to prepare themselves to compete in the global economy. i want you to take the example of a person who is one of the outstanding interns at the state department. she is here today. she is a graduate student with dreams of a career in foreign affairs. she happens to also be deaf. two years ago she traveled to

ghana. it was the opportunity of a lifetime. but the obstacles she faced from the absence of written directions on how to proceed through customs at the airport, to the absence of fire alarms with flashing lights in public buildings, made the demands of everyday life much more difficult for her to sustain. and she managed to travel despite the obstacles in her way that would stop others from traveling at all. she is exceptional. it should not be the exception. it ought to be the rule, and america has more students with disabilities in higher education than ever before, partly by virtue of what we have accomplished with the ada. so students with disabilities participate in study abroad programs, unfortunately, less than half that is often as those without disabilities. and our joining this treaty will help change those numbers. i would just ask you very quickly, and then i will wrap

up, consider a few concrete examples. we're talking about joining a treaty that will strengthen our hand as we push for fire alarms with flashing lights so people who are deaf or hard of hearing will know when there is an emergency or when they need to evacuate, we are talking about joining a treaty that gives us leverage to push for other countries to have sidewalks with those curb cuts those people who use wheelchairs can safely cross the street or the tactile strips at the train platforms so people who are up why do not fall into danger. our joining the treaty means that we will lead the way for other countries to raise their standards and it means we will lead the way for other countries to adopt our standards. for all of these things -- accessible bathrooms, tactile strips, fire alarms flashing

lights -- all the advancements that have made an enormous difference in the lives of americans with disabilities. i will admit to you changes not going to just happened with the passage of the treaty. it will not happen overnight. when we passed the ada, sidewalks with these curb cuts and bathrooms that were accessible did not appear the next day, nor did all the businesses that make accessible products that serve people with disabilities. but the disabilities treaty, just like the ada, is a process. and our joining the treaty, followed by very important ingredient. we passed this treaty, i will send a message to every embassy in the world, and we will begin to engage a protocol that will have our people reaching out to every country and every government, and we will use our presence in this treaty to leverage these changes in these other countries, to encourage these changes, to use of voice that you will give us by

actually joining it, a voice that we are not able to exercise today for our absence as a member. if we join, we can ensure that vets like dan and a lot of others like him have the same opportunities abroad as other americans. that is why the american legion, our nation's largest wartime veteran services organization, which i am proud to be a lifetime member of, vfw, likewise, many other veterans groups support the ratification of this. if we join, i ask you to think about this. why is the american chamber of commerce supporing this? why is coca-cola, which i think, something like 198, 200 countries? it will level the playing field for our businesses who already meet accessibility standards. as other countries rise to meet our standards and it need our expertise, guess what -- they

are going to look to american companies that already produce these goods, and we will be able to help them fill the needs and this needs jobs here at home. that is why ibm and consumer electronics association and many other businesses support ratification. so i think this is a single most important step that we could take today to expand opportunities abroad for more than 50 million americans with disabilities. this treaty is not about changing america. this treaty is about america changing the world. and i hope that each of you will put yourselves in the situation if you were disabled today. one of our colleagues, mark kirk, as we know, who supports this treaty, has unfortunately found himself fighting back against things that happened unexpectedly. and so, while our circumstances might change, our rights and our opportunities should never change. and with the passage of this treaty, we have an opportunity to guarantee that for all americans, and we also have an

opportunity to change lives for the better for a lot of people in the world. that is what america is all about them, and i hope we will ratify this treaty. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. secretary, for a very substantive, very vivid example of why the treaty is so important in the lives of americans with disabilities and the lives of their families who accompany them and the lives of our veterans. let me start a round of questions and get to the issues that i have heard. i am sure you have heard them from your past effort in this regard, and we have heard it in the first round of hearings in individual conversations. some argue that the united states should not enter into treaties that do not involve matters of national security. what would you say to those who espouse the view that treaties like this are unnecessary? >> mr. chairman, i have just

given you a fairly strong description of why it is necessary. we join treaties because they are in our national interest. we do it -- if you think about the treaties that the senate has passed on occasion that positively impact the lives of people, we have passed treaties that promote religious freedom. we have passed treaties that allow for inter-country adoption. we have passed treaties for the international recovery of child support. we have passed treaties that enforce intellectual property rights. i mean, we do this because it is in the interest of the united states. and as i have said, in this particular case, it is in the profound interest of everybody with disabilities, and i find it very hard to see why we could ask people to go abroad, fight, sustain an injury, fight for our values, and not reinforce those

values by allowing them to travel abroad, work abroad, study abroad with the same rights they have here in america. that is what is at stake. that is what makes this in our interest. >> another argument i have heard is that ratification would subordinate united states in the u.n. and allow our laws and actions to be guided by the united nations, the disabilities treaty committee for courts and judges. i personally disagree with that view, and i agreed to explore it in our first hearing. i would like to get your take with that. would ratification violate levels of american sovereignty? >> no, mr. chairman. on the contrary. there is no impact whatsoever to the sovereignty of the united states. in fact, you are exercising our

sovereignty right now by doing the framers of the constitution envisioned, which is gratifying to treaty. if the treaty, if it has no consequences on the united states, it does not record or us going in. there's no subjugation to any entity outside, the cause of action created here, though access to american courts, there's no enforceability, there's no self-execution in here. so there is no cause of action as a consequence that allows people to go to court. in fact, joining this treaty does not require a change to u.s. law, and there's no reach whatsoever by any committee or any entity outside that one committee is allowed to suggest things, but they have no power to enforce, no power to compel, no power to do anything except put an idea on the table. nothing can change unless the united states senate were to reratify whatever suggestion the united states senate might engage in subsequently. there is no change.

>> finally, i appreciate the comments you made here today in public as well as the ones you have expressed to me and i believe other colleagues in private about our openness and willingness to consider reservations, understandings, and declarations that would assuage concerns that members have in terms of ratification of the treaty. and i just want to create a framework for that. i think, myself as the chair and working with you and others, are very open to that process. however, we can also have requests of rud's that go beyond an appropriate balance. and so, while we want to work very deeply with those who want

to get to a yes on the treaty and find a way to do so, it is my hope that the requests that we get for reservations, understandings, and declarations are fair and balanced so that we can take care of the concerns that exist and at the same time not undermine the very essence of our standing with the treaty. is that a fair statement of how we seek to balance this? >> that is exactly our point of view. i mean, last year when we did this process, we entertained -- and i was happy to entertain a number of reservations, understandings, etc. i thought we could do a pretty good job, but we could do more. we are willing to work with you. we do not need to fill this thing up with a stack of restatements of things that absolutely do not need to be restated.

we have to exercise a little bit of restraint and judgment as to what is really a case in controversy here and what is not. i am absolutely prepared, and i said this originally to you, to both you and the ranking member, you know, we want senators to feel comfortable. so we are prepared to address legitimate concerns and will work with you to do it. >> senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i think you know, mr. secretary, i typically do not read from notes, but i'm going to do that today just ask the questions in a specific way. i want to say to the people here who are advocating on behalf of the treaty, there is not anybody up here that disagrees whatsoever with the thought of advancing this cause. that is why so many letters have

come in in support of this. i mean, i do not think that is in question. when people look at these kinds of issues, sometimes they forget that there is a whole body of law out there that affects people domestically in ways that were never intended. and so my goal here, and i think a number of people on the committee's goal and others, is to make sure that the best of what this treaty is about is preserved, but at the same time you end up in a situation where inadvertently you have not done things that affect us domestically in ways that we never intended for that to occur. let me just ask you a series of questions. in the supreme court case, the department of justice argued that ratification of the treaty can expand existing federal power to legislate beyond its traditional limits and that the framers intended for the senate to enforce federalism limits on

treaties through its advice and consent power. do you agree with the argument that your administration has put forth? >> i do not believe that bond applies here. it is not a question whether i agree or disagree with the argument they have put forward. the question is, does bond have any impact on the passage of the disabilities treaty and the fact that is a case of controversy at the moment at the supreme court?the answer is bond involves a challenge to an implementing statute that was passed after the senate gave its advice and consent to a treaty, in other words, after the chemical weapons treaty was passed. then the implemening language was passed.

in this case, the implimenting language has not only been passed, it is then found constitutional by the supreme court and has been put in practice for years. we're talking about the ada. it is the implementing language. so in contrast here, no new legislation is required, and even former senator demint recognize that and accepted that. the constitutionality of our domestic legislation was passed entirely independently of the disabilities treaty has repeatedly sustained by the courts. so we do not have the potential of a bond crisis here. i think it is being inappropriately applied to this treaty. >> ok, so can you confirm than that no further legislation -- i think you just did -- i want this for the record, if i could could you confirm that no further legislation is necessary to meet our obligations under the crpd and there will not be a need in the future for any further legislation to satisfy the convention's requirements?

>> i can confirm that no legislation is required to implement this. nothing -- >> not to satisfy this commission? >> nothing is required to be passed to satisfy this treaty. >> very good, so that united states is not accepting any obligations under the treaty to regulate beyond the federalism limits reflected in the ada and other federal laws? >> that is accurate. >> there would be no need for additional authority beyond the limits of federal government for the government implement crpd? >> that is correct. >> since the crpd comes with no federal obligations and requires no additional authority, you would support strong federalism rud's to limit both of those possibilities, that is a yes or no? >> i would support an appropriate rud, yes, with respect to federalism. >> that addresses these issues, one that addresses these issues firmly and declaratively?

>> that clarifies the federalism reservation and how it would work. i think that is appropriate. >> i would like to obviously -- we have attempted to work with your staff-- >> that restates the fact that the treaty would only obligate us to take action that we can take under federal law. that is the reservation, and you know-- to have a rud is appropriate to be stating that. >> it is important this is a very clear statement, and we look forward to working with you. >> absolutely. >> a range of concerns have been raised that we adopt today could be invalidated or intrepid but a future congress, court, or the u.n. disabilities committee. any senator would want to make sure we can be confident that

our rud's will withstand the test of time and take the view that their advice and consent was taken on -- >> i agree. >> will you support a non- severability rud that ties our treaty obligations to the continuing validity of the rud's? very important area, very important answer. >> can you say that again ? >> we support a non-severability right that ties our trading obligation to the continually validity of the rud's? >> i do not know if i can -- i would just have to be able to make sure that we have the power to do that and it can be done, but there's no way that rud's can be dropped. they become part of the treaty. they are embraced in the treaty. you would have to pull of the treaty or the treaty would have to be changed altogether for therud not to be enforceable. can we look at the language so that i am not committing to something that i would just --

>> i want you to have the language. >> we will work with you on a language. >> if for some reason your staff decides that this is not something that can be done and there is not a serious concern, will the department of justice provide in writing confirmation of its legal review that the senate rud's cannot be invalidated or rendered ineffective for international legal purposes? >> here's what i commit to you. my staff is not going to decide on its own. i am going to decide. i will take a look at it and see where we are, and you and i will talk and we will see what our options on. secondly, i will certainly engage with the justice department in order to find out what is possible. i think we ought to be able to find a way to in the language to properly reflect what you're trying to do. >> i think you know that -- >> we want to act in good faith to answer the questions, so the rud's you enter into, you feel

that you're not entering into a quicksand deal. >> i agree. if i could in ask one question. the treaty allows for the withdrawal of rud's, and state parties are encouraged by monitoring their rud's and others to withdraw theirrud's and other to come into full compliance with the treaty. but a future congress or withdraw rud either from the normal legislative process or unilateral executive action, thereby circumventing -- and remember, a treaty is ratified by 2/3 -- thereby circumventing the constitutional protection provided by a 2/3 majority requirement of the senate advice and consent. you understand what i'm asking? guest: i am told this has never happened. we would not do it without a fair amount of process engaged in it. no foreign country can validate

a u.s. rud. i will tell you that. and no disability committee can't invalidate a u.s. rud. you would presume it would have to take -- i think it would take an entirely new resolution. i would have to find out for you, senator. >> more specifically, could the federalism rud be withdrawn in this manner, eliminating the limits that the senate has put in place to that uses expanded federal authority under the treaty to intrude on the powers of the states? >> i do not believe so, no, because that would be counter of the federalism. >> so you would support arud to protect our rud's on withdrawal without a new resolution of

advice and consent from the senate? >> on the surface that would appear to be a good thing to do. i would want to check with my counsel and run it through, but why not? >> i thank you, and i think the chairman for his patience. i would say to the community of people who are advocating for the passage of this treaty, all the things that i just asked about today have nothing to do with helping other countries around the world deal with these issues that are so important, they are about insuring that this treaty does not have the unattended consequences that sometimes can happen in our country. i ask those who are advocates here to help push the administration and others to resolve these issues with us if in fact you believe this treaty is something important to pass. i thank you for the time. >> thank you, senator corker. now, i've extended the time for the ranking member because he plays a very important role.

i am going to have to be -- because there is going to be action on the floor, obviate our timeframe here and ask members stick to their time. with that -- >> thank you, mr. chairman, secretary kerry, and thank you for your extraordinary leadership and thank you for what you have done has secretary of state. you have been an incredible voice for america, and we thank you for that. i want to acknowledge the presence of dr. seth morgan. he is a commissioner of the maryland comission on people with disabilities. dr. morgan is a retired neurologist with 28 years of experience in the field of neurology, psychiatry, and diagnostic radiology. he is an advocate, working as a volunteer for the national ms society. he is a person who lives with ms. i would like to quote some of the statements that dr. morgan made, which is as a person with with a family living abroad, i would be able to visit my siblings, nephews, and extended

family without the uncertainty that has plagued prior visits. underscoring what you said, mr. secretary, about how important this treaty is for americans who are traveling abroad. mr. chairman, i would ask consent that the statement by secretary hagel in support of the legislation, on behalf of the military families come in the 5.5 million american veterans who have disabilities, been a part of the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i often write you letters. i have written you letters raising concerns of religious freedom, concerns about corruption and other country, concern about how police activities occur in other countries. will write you about issues concerning people who have challenges and disabilities. can you just tell me -- you are

secretary of state, you are in those meetings -- the fact that we have not ratified this treaty, does that affect your credibility in advocating on behalf of a sick core values that we believe in, the right of all people, including of all people with disabilities, when you raise these issues of concern that we have another countries? >> senator, i am not going to tell you in every conversation i've had somebody has raised the disabilities treaty because they have not. but the generic breadth of our comes up.olutely and often you wind up with people pushing back and once -- on one thing or another about our absence from the table, either not having signed up to a particular treaty. i will tell you this is happened frequently for instance on the law of the sea, although that is not the issue in front of us.

we often have ashley me say up .ront -- i never go anywhere any meeting i have anywhere, we discussed the question of rights, human rights, question of what is happening in a country, its transformation, it's reforms. we always run into some kind of debate about the differences, cultural differences here, but on this kind of thing, i have raised this issue on occasion in certain places, and people indicate a readiness and willingness to try and do things, but they are not particularly versed in it. they do not know what the options are. they are not sure how much it costs or how long it takes or what the competition czar. that is the virtue of our being able to put the ada on the table, and also be a member of the submitted to the 138 member countries and start to engage them on it, and the answer is --

are not ae in and you member and you are not part of it, of course you lose leverage. >> there's no question that the ratification strengthens the u.s. position internationally in advocating on the half of basic rights for people with disabilities. it is interesting, when you look at basic human rights and the advancement of basic human rights, when the united states is missing in those debates it is a much more challenging to get the type of progress that we need. >> absolutely. without any question. and, you know, when you run to the list and look at the countries that are signed up to it, you see incredible opportunities here. i mean, you know, saudi arabia, south korea, yemen, zambia, tanzania, the united kingdom, jordan -- you run around any of these countries, israel actually is a signatory

and israel did a reservation with respect one thing, to abide by their laws, but they are comfortable. intimacy as a full advocate that we have the power to be because we are the ones who initiated this, that we are the ones that initiated it, we're the ones that went to countries and said, come on board, and now we are not there, the result is that committee frankly is not as energized and as gay -- and engaged as it should be. there's a lot that could be done by joining up. >> i will make an observation that the united states has been a leader in advancing the rights of people with disabilities. in 1991, in the moscow document over the osce, it was the u.s. you should. cartman hoyer was rim much involved taking the work that we here and bring it to that organization, and it

is cited as a government used to advance rights for people with disabilities in international meetings and make sure that proper accommodations have been made. ratification of this treaty, as you point out, countries that in so so far behind us accommodating people with disabilities have already signed and ratified this treaty. it gives us a seat at the table to advance their laws that protect people with disabilities . it is a golden opportunity for us, and it is interesting that these countries have already ratified it and approved it and we are still in the process of doing it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you. i will be brief. we have been known to feed there might be a civic and measure taken on the four at 10:30. thank you for being here as the grandson -- my grandfather was severely disabled by polio. he struggled all life to provide for his family. i'm sympathetic to the goals here. i'm getting e-mails about people

who have concerts by what they are reading and hearing about this. i have two questions. the first is involving a statement made in 2007 when the assembly approved the final text. u.s. issued an official statement to clarify our understanding of the phrase reproductive health in article 25 -- does not include abortion, and its use in that article does rightsate any abortion and cannot constitute the support of abortion. with the administration support the inclusion of an understanding that affirms this policy? >> as you know, last year we had a debate about this here in the committee, and i thought we came thatth a pretty good rud dealt with this question by making sure that it did not include any language regarding any medical procedure. i think we used any medical procedure, that it did not refer

to that whatsoever, because there were some back and forth on the issue. he always follow issue about her choice, pro life. and i thought we had thread that needle fairly effectively. if there is a commissioned by the committee -- a conviction but committee that he has not, then we should work to the language, but i want to make it clear, nothing in article 25 or anywhere else in this treaty creates a right to abortion. that is a domestic legal issue and nothing in this treaty changes that. and that was in the transmittal letter to the congress which made it very clear that that was true, and i thought the line which we had last year helped verify, but we are happy to work with you to make sure it is clarify. lot of e-ou, and a mails about homeschooling. the written testimony by mr. gray talks about an idea and i want your opinion, the inclusion an understanding that said that

nothing in the trinity treaty minutes the ability of parents to homeschool their children. me make it clear. we all die as a right of parents to make decisions for their children, including the decision to homeschool. and second, nobody is seeking to weaken or believes there is anything in here that weakens or laminates those rights and, third, u.s. ratification of this treaty will have absolutely no impact on parental rights, homeschooling, or any aspect of u.s. law. we added during the market last year -- the markup last year ruds, including an understanding of to delay the concerns of homeschoolers. i continue to support and understanding, if that will help address insurance. we will happy to work with you to make sure that the language is adequate to do that. >> i want to give you the opportunity to address this. this is my last question.

yesterday it appears khamenei referred to israel as a rabid dog faqs the u.s. of attaching -- as a rabid dog. an american official call that language -- would you comment on that statement. -- we disagreeee with the profamily. you're asking the obvious. it is inflammatory and unnecessary, and i think at this moment when we are trying to negotiate and to figure out what can and cannot be achieved, the last thing we need are names back and forth. i do not want to exacerbate it now, sitting here, but our good friends in israel know full well defend their concerns, they are deeply ---- they are deeply, existentially threatened

by what is happening in the defensee stand by our of israel completely, and we do not believe that anything is with names that challenge everybody's sense of propriety and justice and rectitude. we have been through this before. you have heard we heard disturbing assertions regarding the holocaust and so forth. away from that. our hope is the process of the next months and years will unable us to do that. thank you, chairman menendez, for convening our second hearing to consider the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. think you, secretary kerry, for your ongoing leadership. protecting the rights of disabled persons has historically garnered the