tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 22, 2013 2:00am-4:01am EST
2:00 am
you're not limiting your populace that much. financial considerations and the foreign contacts, it is really about what is diagnostic. we have conducted a study where we have conducted a study where we try to assess some of the diagnostic features of those rich fasters -- of those risk factors. a.b. be in five years it will be out there. but it is certainly something that people understand is a necessity. in the next couple of years, it will only garner more support. >> for the psychological indicators of someone turning, if they are turning into a zombie or something, right, i
2:01 am
can see there is a lot of potential good data sources from psych evaluations and other interesting things for my human resources and excuse my ignorance here but i don't know what the limitations are. what are your limitations of your ability to pull those resources and utilize it for threat profiling? >> one of the limitations to the psych evaluation, and this is not limited to the geyer government am a but industry partners as well, but psych evaluations are considered medical and are protected under the laws -- under hippa laws. where i think the community is going is figuring out ways to kind of take that diagnostic, you know, the diagnoses and break them down so they are not clinical, so you are so getting at the factors that are most important. again, there are still a lot of work to figure that out. you can't use clinical terms from the dsm. that is where you draw that line
2:02 am
from medical territory. that is what the biggest challenges. -- biggest challenge is. >> you mentioned taking reports from coworkers that observe things about people. is it of more value to have anonymous reports or to have the name of the reporter? >> i think both prove beneficial. i know we certainly have a problem in the bureau. i think there is a large sense of camaraderie between our agents that might not enable someone to be more forthright when they are reporting something. so an anonymous reporting system might work best in an environment like that where you fear that people won't report unless it is anonymous. ideally, you would like to know who's reporting so you can follow up with them. i think the critical aspect in any type of coworker or supervisor reporting mechanism
2:03 am
is that nothing is reported triggers any type of specific punitive action. that is the biggest thing, especially with some of the psychosocial indicators and all of the indicators. no one thing is meant to trigger anything. so it is just a combination of things. just because you have financial problems or you are argumentative or abrasive in the workplace. it doesn't mean anything. you just may be a layer up and we may want to look at you a little bit more. >> my question is about personality versus the nice assist diagnosis. you mentioned not going to dsm because of hippa. but is personality accessible in ways that these diagnoses minority?
2:04 am
>> we are still try to figure out the best way to do that and there are limitations. in an ideal world, we would like to have vertical psychologists conduct tests on our employees and take that information because it is validated and tested. that is not really a feasible option. so in my talks with other people within the community, we have been toying around the idea of creating a reporting mechanism, asking specific questions, not geared as if you think if someone is nice assist it but behavioral meditation is. so if your supervisor answers a question or that has -- if someone is a narcissist but behavioral manifestations. so if your supervisor answers a questionaire. simply answering questions on things that he has or has not observed in terms of what you behaviorally act in the
2:05 am
workplace. it is one of the most feasible ways to get at this problem because you are taking out the clinical aspect. you are taking out any kind of sensitivity, personality, psychology and you are linking how a person acts to what it might possibly mean. >> what do you do when someone goes critical on your indicator score? [laughter] >> what do you mean? that's classified. i cannot discuss that. we have a variety of measures in place and a lot of the groups have similar measures.
2:06 am
it's a struggle. it's one of the biggest troubles within the community, what you do. again, even if someone is 100%, it does not mean that they are a malicious insider. they just have all of the risk factors. they could be further back, spectrum and i think one thing we always try to promote and why it's important to get plugged into your hr department is that it's not necessarily just about detecting.
2:07 am
it's about deterring. if someone triggers 100%, we look at them but we cannot determine that they've done anything, the 100% is based off of these risk fact or's that are normal to a person. they're going through financial problems, marital problems, acting out in the work lace. we like to use the analogy that they are like rumble strips on the side of the road. a person going straight, at some point they veer off. if we could identify that and try to push them back straight on the road by giving them
2:08 am
resources through the hr department, having our employee assistance program, having someone to talk to, getting them financial help, things like that, it can also help try to steer that. >> can you speak to the data aggregation aspect? i understand collecting data from multiple sources, but how you get the data considering if you rely on your i.t. shop or something that you rely on the people you are looking at. can you speak at all about that? >> this is a really big problem, too. it's something that we deal with in every other program i've spoken to. who watches the watchers? that comes into play when you're getting this i.t. information or system information from your specialist. it is something the community still struggles with.
2:09 am
we have mechanisms in place to kind of watch the watchers, but it's a big problem. in terms of literally how you aggregate the data, it takes a lot of building relationships with all of these other entities. that's another thing i'm seeing. we talked a lot of people within the community that, again, it's a multidimensional problem. you have tons of stakeholders that need to get information. hr needs personnel. i.t. need system audit logs. they need threat information. the personalities involved to try to get some of that information proves pretty difficult. technically aggregating that with one central repository is kind of where we are trying to go with this if it answers a
2:10 am
question. >> i want to ask the question. are there studies out there, for example, to kind of bring forth these indicators? for example, a lot of psychological studies may be can be cited to really profile or put that indicator as important in this aspect rather than something else? can you shed light on that? >> there are certainly a lot of research out there. it's kind of oxymoronic but there is more research on the psychology side of things than there is on the cyber- intellectual. we have more capabilities than psychological or psychosocial. the research that i'm aware of within the psychological community is that there are a lot of risk factors that have been identified. they solely focus on the bat population. these are all of the psychological elements but they have not really compared that to try and understand what is
2:11 am
actually diagnostic. again, begin into the problems that we discussed that we cannot really attain the psychological characteristic from our employees because of all of the sensitivities and other issues involved. with a lot of research, i think it's just about pushing it forward in terms of how to take the content and operationalize it. like some of the characteristics you mentioned up there, psychosocial, they are really cultural and different in the way that people behave. do you take that into consideration when you do your analysis? >> i'm not necessarily saying that we are doing all of this. this is in an ideal world. yes, that is an inherent issue when you kind of delve into turning something that is so subjective and try to make it objective that there are inherent bias in terms of where you are getting the information from. there is a bias both in terms of their opinion but also, as you
2:12 am
mentioned, what the behavior might actually mean. if anyone is going to try to implement any of these indicators operationally, that's exactly right. it's a key issue to keep in mind. i think where that ties in is the notion that there is no specific action from one of these things and you have to take all of this information with a grain of salt and it is sure that you are not penalizing someone or enacting any type of punitive action on them solely because they're supervisor reported that they were acting weird in the office which, again, that could be a cultural difference.
2:13 am
you are not talking to people because they do not feel comfortable with the cultural divide. if you implement something like this, you just have to really be cognizant of how you use the information. >> just curious because social media is so allover the place. how are you bringing in the data today? are you bringing in that data today? >> social media information is something that's on everybody's radar. we are exploring it. i think that's the best i can say. [inaudible] >> i'm speaking from my experience with the fbi population not anybody else and then my interactions with other groups and how they deal with their own employees. >> [inaudible] that is not my purview. i do know with the recent executive order and the known worthiness of insider threats that the fbi does have a mission to kind of reach out to industry. that's not something i can't speak about though, unfortunately. >> we have all of these rules and regulations that we're supposed to share data. the only problem is when you share you become liable. how a person interprets what you are saying. is there anything about centralization of an insider threat across the federal government and the dod so we can be able to turn around and give it to the commercial world?
2:14 am
kind of mission partners? >> that is something they're still trying to put together. i'm speaking from the fbi program. what i know is between nci s and the fbi, we have the national insider threat task force who has the objective of taking that order and breaking it down to the various government industry levels. again, we can touch base off- line and maybe point you in the direction of somebody who might be able to better answer that. yes. that's an unclassified e-mail. >> what about addressing nonintentional insider threat in terms of knowledge transfer from things like e-mail phishing a dropped usb memory stick? >> we are addressing the issue. what i predominantly focus on
2:15 am
are the malicious insiders. we certainly have numerous processes in place to deal with spearfishing and individuals who are attacking our people that translates into the insider threat piece but i cannot really touch base or talk about that in this forum. sorry. ok. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> friday marks 50 years since the assassination of president john f. kennedy. your calls remembering the day during "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern. 10:00 a.m., the rarest -- rarely seen nbc broadcast where they reported on it.
2:16 am
reading from some of the president posses speeches at 12:30 p.m. at boston, from the jfk presidential library with a musical tribute from james taylor. and, the u.s. naval academy posses women's glee cup -- club. we will be joined by david hawking's on washington journal to discuss how the white house and washington dc prepare for president kennedy'state funeral. also, presidential historian and author will talk about the legacy of john kennedy 50 years after his death. gregory, a family friend of lee harvey oswald, will be our guest. 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. next, secretary of state john kerry testifies at a hearing on disability rights and international law.
2:17 am
2:19 am
>> 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
2:20 am
2:21 am
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
2:22 am
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, and dr. jordan, the president emeritus of gallaudet university, 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,
2:23 am
representing 2. 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 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
2:24 am
2:25 am
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.
2:26 am
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 -- 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
2:27 am
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
2:28 am
2:29 am
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
2:30 am
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 had 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
2:31 am
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 the
2:32 am
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
2:33 am
2:34 am
>> 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 into them.
2:35 am
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 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 menendez, for your comments, your leadership around this first
2:36 am
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 -- 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
2:37 am
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
2:38 am
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
2:39 am
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 had before. it is not an abstract concept. this is not just a nice thing to do. it is not something that is sort
2:40 am
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 day of their life. the united states has the ability to impact that the passage of this treaty. 138 countries have already signed up to this. in too many countries, what we did here at home with the americans with disabilities act
2:41 am
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 bullets, soldiers wounded by ied's, volunteers caught in the tragic shootouts that take place over their efforts to help us
2:42 am
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.
2:43 am
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.
2:44 am
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,
2:45 am
2:46 am
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
2:47 am
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."
2:48 am
this is about something very real. look at the numbers of people who are here today and the numbers of groups represented behind me here today. every one of them represents thousands more people for whom this is very real. it 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.
2:49 am
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.
2:50 am
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.
2:51 am
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
2:52 am
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 our
2:53 am
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
2:54 am
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
2:55 am
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.
2:56 am
2:57 am
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.
2:58 am
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 pass 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 supporting this?
2:59 am
why is coca-cola, which i think, is in 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 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 the 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
3:00 am
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
3:01 am
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, 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.
89 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News ArchiveUploaded by TV Archive on