dr. farris argue the opposite. now the u.n. can get control of them. well, if i say my opinion, that is nonsense if a child wears glasses, they are considered disabled. i wonder what is bind -- behind that? i ask the question for the record. have you tried to raise funds telling paimpts this treaty limits ability to decide what is best for their children? >> senator, our organization is funded by membership dues, not by contributions. >> so you've never sent out an e-mail asking for funds to fight -- >> no. home school legal defense association is associated with parentalrights.org, and they sent out fundraising. >> thank you very much. >> but, senator -- >> yeah? >> the substance answer is the treaty does not ban home skelling. the treaty shifts the decision making authority from parentings to the government. that's what the meaning of the best interest is. >> that's not something i agree with, nor do any of the org'ses. >> well -- >> thank you very much. >> senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. professor meyer, are you particular with the 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." 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. never sent an e- mail asking for funds to fi

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-

dr. michael farris to join us as well as they offer their views on the treaty. let me turn to senator durbin. >> thank you mr. chairman i'm honored that two of the witnesses are from illinois and especially honored in addition to saying a word about my colleague mark kirk to say a word about tammy duckworth because it's into string how we came to me. i invited her to be a guess at my state of the union address in 2005. she came in her wheelchair and i didn't realize it was only nine or 10 weeks after she had been shot down, serving in the illinois army national guard co-piloting a blackhawk helicopter. she lost both of her legs and it was a question then about one of her arms. she came with a big smile on her face in full dress uniform with her husband also national guard officer pushing the wheelchair behind her. that is when they came to me. it's an incredible story and the most amazing part of the story to me is in just a week from now she will be in observance of her ninth alive day, ninth anniversary of her survival from that helicopter incident and the cra

farris? i don't think so. hasn't mandated abortion across america? dr. yoshihara? know it has an. the americans with disabilities act is the implementation -- implementing act that we adopted ahead of the treaty on disabilities. the bond case is dealing with the implementation act on the convention weapons treaties. two separate actions by congress. one ratifying the convention on chemical weapons. two, passing a law called the implication act, the law of the land. and at the supreme court will decide if the law is proper. so conflating these two and saying it's all about the same thing, one of our scholarly colleagues, the junior senator from texas, said in a piece in the "washington post," if the supreme court concluded a treaty can be used to prosecute americans regardless of the constitutional rights, the ramifications could be alarming. he goes on to all sorts of opportunities. the prosecution is not under a treaty. it's under the implementation act. it's different. it's a law of congress. and i am just stopped cold here with this argument by mr. farris that the americans wit