19–115 

112TH CONGRESS EXEC. REPT. " ! SENATE 2d Session 112–6 

CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH 

DISABILITIES (TREATY DOC. 112–7) 

JULY 31, 2012.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. KERRY, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany Treaty Doc. 112–7] 

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred the 

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, signed on 

June 30, 2009 (Treaty Doc. 112–7) (the ‘‘Convention’’), having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with three reservations, eight understandings and two declarations, as indicated in 

the resolution of advice and consent, and recommends that the 

Senate give its advice and consent to ratification thereof, as set 

forth in this report and the accompanying resolution of advice and 

consent. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose ........................................................................................................... 2 

II. Background .................................................................................................... 2 

III. Major Provisions ............................................................................................ 2 

IV. Entry Into Force and Amendments .............................................................. 6 

V. Implementing Legislation ............................................................................. 6 

VI. Committee Action .......................................................................................... 7 

VII. Committee Recommendation and Comments .............................................. 7 

VIII. Text of Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification .......................... 14 

IX. Minority Views of Senators Risch, Rubio, Inhofe, DeMint, and Lee ......... 17 

X. Annex 1.—Hearing of July 12, 2012 ............................................................ 21 

XI. Annex 2.—Material Submitted for the Record During Testimony ............ 117 

XII. Annex 3.—Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record 129 

XIII. Annex 4.—Additional Letters Submitted for the Record in Support of 

the Convention ........................................................................................... 149 

2 

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of this Convention is to promote, protect and ensure 

the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental 

freedoms by persons with disabilities. 

II. BACKGROUND

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was 

negotiated from 2002 to 2006, and was adopted on December 13, 

2006. It was opened for signature on March 30, 2007. One hundred 

and seventeen countries and the European Union are parties to the 

Convention. 

The United States provides greater legal protections against discrimination for individuals with disabilities than most of the rest 

of the world. Therefore, Americans with disabilities often face significant and, at times, prohibitive, barriers when they travel, work, 

serve, study and reside in other countries. 

Ratification of the Convention will advance our national interest 

in multiple ways. Among its benefits, the Convention will reaffirm 

and strengthen the global leadership role of the United States with 

regard to the rights of disabled persons, one to which our domestic 

record already attests. As a State Party to the Convention, the 

United States will be in a position to better promote the fundamental freedoms and individual autonomy of individuals with disabilities. It will allow us to more effectively support, assist, and encourage other countries to bring their domestic laws into compliance with the Convention and up to and in line with U.S. standards. Such action will benefit Americans with disabilities, including 

our disabled servicemen and servicewomen and disabled veterans, 

enabling them to travel, work, serve, study and reside in other 

countries without prohibitive barriers. 

July 26, 2012 marked the twenty-second anniversary of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act. Through this and other legislation, the United States became a world leader in the protection 

of the rights of disabled individuals. Joining the Convention will be 

a significant step in continuing this leadership and will give the 

United States another tool to positively impact the lives of the fiftyfour million Americans with disabilities and the one billion disabled individuals worldwide. 

III. MAJOR PROVISIONS

A detailed article-by-article analysis of the Convention may be 

found in the Letter of Submittal from the Secretary of State to the 

President (‘‘Letter of Submittal’’). Key provisions of the Convention 

are summarized below. 

Scope of the Convention 

The Convention is intended to recognize and protect the rights 

of individuals with disabilities. Its stated purpose is ‘‘to promote, 

protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human 

rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, 

and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.’’ Article 3 of the 

Convention sets out broad principles of autonomy, acceptance, and 

accessibility for individuals with disabilities. Equality and nonVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
3 

discrimination are over-arching principles permeating the entire 

Convention. 

All Parties to the Convention agree to ‘‘ensure and promote the 

full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for 

all persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind on 

the basis of disability.’’ Article 4 requires Parties to adopt appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights in the Convention. The Convention’s provisions can generally be grouped into the following categories: accessibility, education, equality, employment, and health. 

Definition of Disability 

The Convention does not contain an explicit definition of ‘‘disability.’’ Article 1 states that persons with disabilities ‘‘include 

those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory 

impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder 

their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis 

with others.’’ As the Letter of Submittal makes clear, the absence 

of an express definition of the terms ‘‘disability’’ and ‘‘persons with 

disabilities’’ was a conscious decision at the negotiating conference 

for the Convention. As explained in the letter of submittal, ‘‘the 

convention is not intended to supplant detailed and precise definitions of disability found in national legislation but is rather intended to afford States Parties flexibility in defining disability 

under domestic law.’’ See Letter of Submittal at 5-7. As the U.S. 

legal framework demonstrates, this approach is preferable given 

that the definition of these terms may vary depending on the purpose of the law (e.g. employment discrimination or access to health 

services). See Letter of Submittal at 3-5. 

Accessibility Provisions 

One fundamental goal of the Convention is to enable disabled 

persons to live independently and participate in all aspects of life. 

To that end, Article 9 requires States Parties to: 

take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and 

communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and 

services open or provided to the public, both in urban and 

in rural areas. 

These measures include the removal of obstacles to buildings, 

transportation, information, communications, and electronic and 

emergency services. Article 18 of the Convention directs States Parties to recognize the rights of disabled individuals to ‘‘liberty of 

movement,’’ to provide the freedom to choose their residence, and 

to guarantee the right to a nationality, on an equal basis with others. In particular, it requires States Parties to ensure that disabled 

persons are not deprived of their nationality or their ability to 

enter their country, arbitrarily or on the basis of their disability, 

and are free to leave any country, without discrimination on the 

basis of their disability. It requires children with disabilities to be 

‘‘registered immediately after birth and [to] have the right from 

4 

birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as 

possible, the right to know and be cared for by their parents.’’ 

Article 19 emphasizes the right of all persons with disabilities to 

live and participate in the community on an equal basis. States 

Parties must ensure that people with disabilities have the opportunity to select their place of residence on an equal basis with others and access residential and other community support services, 

including assistance necessary for inclusion in the community. 

Article 20 emphasizes that States Parties must attempt to ensure personal mobility for people with disabilities, in part by facilitating access to assistive technologies and live assistance. 

Education Provisions 

Article 24 of the Convention requires States Parties to ‘‘ensure 

an inclusive education system at all levels.’’ Children with disabilities must be offered the same opportunities for free primary and 

secondary education as other children in their communities. Their 

individual needs must be reasonably accommodated, and they must 

receive support ‘‘to facilitate their effective education.’’ Additionally, the Convention specifically requires that Parties facilitate 

methods of communication to assist students with disabilities in 

fully participating in the educational process, including but not limited to the use of sign language, Braille, and other modes of communication. 

Employment Provisions 

Article 27 of the Convention recognizes a right of individuals 

with disabilities to work in an ‘‘environment that is open, inclusive 

and accessible to persons with disabilities.’’ By joining the Convention, Parties agree to prohibit employment discrimination based on 

an employee or applicant’s disability. If necessary, the Parties are 

to adopt legislation to bar such discrimination in various aspects of 

the employment process, including recruitment, hiring, retention, 

promotion, and termination. Employees with disabilities must be 

reasonably accommodated, permitted access to training programs, 

and allowed to exercise labor rights on an equal basis with others. 

States Parties must also employ persons with disabilities in the 

public sector on a non-discriminatory basis. 

Equality Provisions 

Article 5 of the Convention creates a broad prohibition against 

discrimination and requires Parties to recognize that ‘‘all persons 

are equal before and under the law and are entitled without any 

discrimination to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law.’’ 

States Parties to the Convention must accordingly prohibit discrimination based on disability and take steps to ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided to disabled individuals. In Article 10, Parties reaffirm ‘‘that every human being has the inherent 

right to life’’ and agree to take all necessary measures to ‘‘ensure 

its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal 

basis with others.’’ 

Articles 12 and 13 mandate equal recognition before the law for 

disabled persons. Parties must provide equal access to justice systems and ensure that measures relating to the exercise of legal capacity provide safeguards to prevent abuse in accordance with 

5 

international human rights law, while allowing for impartial judicial bodies. In addition, Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention specifically recognize the human rights of women and children with disabilities. 

Article 14 requires Parties to ensure, on an equal basis with others, that persons with disabilities are not unlawfully or arbitrarily 

deprived of liberty. Article 15 states that persons should not be 

subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or 

punishment. Article 16 requires States Parties to take measures to 

protect individuals with disabilities from all forms of exploitation, 

violence, and abuse—including gender-based abuse—as well as provide for the physical and psychological recovery of victims and investigation and, where appropriate, prosecution of perpetrators. Article 21 declares that disabled persons must be able to exercise 

their right to freedom of expression and opinion, through all forms 

of communication, on an equal basis with others. It advocates for 

the provision of information in accessible formats and technologies, 

and the facilitation of sign language, Braille, and other alternative 

methods of communication. Article 23 requires Parties to eliminate 

discrimination against persons with disabilities in domestic matters, such as marriage and parenthood. Article 28 requires Parties 

to promote realization by people with disabilities of their equal 

right to an adequate standard of living and equal access to food, 

clothing, and housing. Article 29 requires Parties to guarantee 

equal political rights, including accessible procedures for voting, as 

well as promote participation of disabled individuals in public affairs and nongovernmental organizations, on a nondiscriminatory 

basis. Article 30 requires Parties to recognize the rights of disabled 

individuals to take part in cultural life and recreational and sporting activities on a nondiscriminatory basis. 

Health Provisions 

Under Article 25 of the Convention, the States Parties recognize 

that individuals with disabilities have the same right as others to 

enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. They must 

be offered the same range, quality, and standard of care as that 

available to other persons. Health care professionals must provide 

care on the same basis as they would provide if the individual 

seeking care did not have a disability. Article 25 also prohibits discrimination based on disability related to the provision of health 

and life insurance. 

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

Article 34 of the Convention creates a Committee on the Rights 

of Persons with Disabilities, whose members are elected by States 

Parties to the Convention. States Parties are required to submit 

periodic reports to the Committee that detail the measures they 

have taken to implement their obligations, as well as progress toward implementation. The Committee will then return ‘‘such suggestions and general recommendations on the report as it may consider appropriate.’’ These recommendations are advisory only. They 

are not binding on States Parties. 

6 

IV. ENTRY INTO FORCE AND AMENDMENTS

The Convention enters into force for a ratifying or acceding State 

on the thirtieth day after its instrument of ratification or accession 

has been deposited. For the United States, this means thirty days 

after the deposit of the U.S. instrument of ratification with the advice and consent of the Senate. 

Amendments to articles 34, 38, 39 and 40 (which concern the 

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) may be 

adopted only by a consensus decision of States Parties to the Convention. If adopted, such amendments enter into force and become 

binding on all States Parties thirty days after two-thirds of all 

States Parties submit instruments of ratification for the amendment. 

For all other articles of the Convention, amendments may be 

adopted by majority vote at a meeting at which at least two-thirds 

of States Parties are present. If adopted, such amendments enter 

into force thirty days after two thirds of States Parties submit instruments of ratification for the amendment. However, such 

amendments are binding only on those States Parties that submit 

instruments of ratification. 

V. WITHDRAWAL

Pursuant to Article 48, a Party may withdraw from the Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United 

Nations. This withdrawal becomes effective one year after the receipt of notification. 

VI. IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION

The provisions of the Convention are not self-executing. Accordingly, they cannot be directly enforced by U.S. courts or give rise 

to individually enforceable rights in the United States. 

The United States has a comprehensive network of existing federal and state disability laws and enforcement mechanisms, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12101 et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq.; the 

Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 251(a)(2) and 255; the Fair Housing 

Act, as amended in 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.; the Air Carrier 

Access Act, 49 U.S.C. § 41705; the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984, 42 U.S.C. § 1973ee et seq.; the 

Help America Vote Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. § 15301-15545; the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg et seq.; 

the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 

et seq.; the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.; the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 200ff et seq.; the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.C.C. § 1400 et seq., 

and the Architectural Barriers Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4151 et seq. In addition, disability nondiscrimination provisions have been integrated 

into statutes of general applicability to federal policies and programs. See Letter of Submittal at 91. 

In the large majority of cases, existing federal and state law 

meets or exceeds the requirements of the Convention. The recommended reservations in the resolution of advice and consent 

(discussed in section VIII below) make clear that the United States 

7 

will limit its obligations under the Convention to exclude the narrow circumstances in which implementation of the Convention 

could otherwise implicate federalism or private conduct concerns. 

As the Department of Justice made clear, ratification of the Convention with the recommended reservations will not alter the balance of power between the federal government and the states. 

No additional implementing legislation is necessary with respect 

to the Convention. 

VII. COMMITTEE ACTION

The committee held a public hearing on the Convention on July 

12, 2012. Testimony was received from the Honorable John 

McCain, United States Senator; the Honorable Tom Harkin, United 

States Senator; the Honorable Judith Heumann, Special Adviser 

for International Disability Rights, U.S. Department of State; Ms. 

Eve Hill, Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General for 

Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Justice; The Honorable Richard 

Thornburgh, Former Attorney General of the United States and Of 

Counsel, K&L Gates, LLP; Mr. John Wodatch, Former Chief of the 

Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of 

Justice; Mr. Steven Groves, Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow, 

The Heritage Foundation; Dr. Michael Farris, Chancellor, Patrick 

Henry College; and Mr. John Lancaster, 1st Lt., U.S. Marine Corps 

(Ret.), and Retired Executive Director of the National Council On 

Independent Living. (The transcript of the Hearing is included in 

Annex 1.) 

On July 26, 2012, the committee considered the Convention and 

ordered it favorably reported by a roll call vote of 13–6, with a 

quorum present and a majority of those members physically 

present and voting in the affirmative. The following Senators voted 

in the affirmative: Kerry, Boxer, Menendez, Cardin, Casey, Webb, 

Shaheen, Coons, Durbin, Udall, Lugar, Isakson and Barrasso. The 

following Senators voted in the negative: Corker, Risch, Rubio, 

Inhofe, DeMint and Lee. 

VIII. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS

A. General Comments 

The committee recommends that the Senate give its advice and 

consent to ratification of the Convention. The committee believes 

that the Convention advances important U.S. interests in a number 

of areas. 

The committee is persuaded by the support of experts in disability law and advocacy that ratification of the Convention will enable the United States to more effectively advocate on behalf of the 

millions of disabled Americans. These experts indicate that it will 

give the United States a more effective voice in advocating for 

standards and practices abroad that comport with the high standards for protection of disabled persons found in U.S. domestic law 

and practice. In addition to our bilateral efforts, ratification will 

allow the U.S. to nominate U.S. disabilities experts to sit on the 

Disabilities Committee, giving the United States a formal voice and 

vote in the Assembly of States Parties to the Convention. 

Sustained and effective U.S. leadership in such areas will have 

a positive, practical impact on the lives of disabled Americans. WitVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
8 

nesses before the committee testified that U.S. ratification will 

make it more likely that other governments will adopt standards 

and regulations concerning the disabled that conform to U.S. practice, and that the ability of disabled Americans to travel, work, 

serve, study, and live abroad will be enhanced greatly. For example, greater uniformity in standards such as the width of doorways 

or the size and pitch of ramps could advantage Americans who use 

wheelchairs when they travel abroad. 

Joining the Convention may also benefit American businesses. If 

countries adhere to the standards set forth in the Convention, then 

foreign businesses may be required to adopt new standards and 

practices to conform to new disabilities laws around the globe. To 

the extent these standards are modeled on U.S. law and practice, 

American businesses are already equipped to comply and thus have 

an advantage over foreign competitors. Moreover, American products and services that are already accessible to the disabled will 

continue to find new markets in countries whose disability standards move closer to those of the United States. 

As discussed in section VI and as explained in detail in the Letter of Submittal, in light of the reservations included in the resolution of advice and consent, current federal and state law meets or 

exceeds the requirements of the Convention and no changes to federal or state law will be required as a result of U.S. ratification. 

B. Nature of the Convention as a Nondiscrimination Instrument 

The committee notes that the Convention is a nondiscrimination 

instrument, requiring that services and opportunities be made 

available on an equal basis to persons with disabilities and those 

without disabilities. Therefore, as the second understanding in the 

resolution of advice and consent makes clear, with respect to certain economic, social and cultural rights mentioned in the Convention, States Parties to the Convention are not obligated to provide 

new rights by virtue of accession to the Convention. Rather, the obligations of Parties to the Convention are to prevent discrimination 

on the basis of disability in the provision of such rights only insofar 

as they are already recognized and implemented under domestic 

law. 

This concept includes health services, as Article 25 of the Convention makes clear. In the course of the committee’s consideration 

of the Convention, an understanding was added to the resolution 

of advice and consent stating that Article 25 requires that health 

programs and procedures are provided to individuals with disabilities on a nondiscriminatory basis and does not address the provision of any particular health program or procedure. 

C. The Disabilities Committee 

In the course of the committee’s consideration of the Convention, 

questions were raised concerning the role of the Disabilities Committee established under Article 34 of the Convention. As discussed 

above, by ratifying the Convention, the U.S. will have the ability 

to nominate American citizens to serve as experts on the Disabilities Committee. The committee believes that American engagement with the Disabilities Committee will inure to the benefit of 

disabled Americans when they travel, work, serve, study and reside 

abroad. The Convention will require the United States to submit 

9 

periodic reports to the Disabilities Committee for its review. In 

these reports, U.S. officials will have an opportunity to highlight 

the effectiveness of U.S. law and practice concerning individuals 

with disabilities and demonstrate that our laws and standards 

would be a good model for the rest of the world. 

The text of the Convention is clear that the role of the Disabilities Committee is limited. The Disabilities Committee is authorized under Article 36 to ‘‘consider’’ State Party Reports and to 

‘‘make such suggestions and general recommendations on the report as it may consider appropriate.’’ Under Article 37, the Disabilities Committee ‘‘shall give due consideration to ways and means 

of enhancing national capacities for the implementation of the 

present Convention.’’ 

The Disabilities Committee has no authority to compel actions by 

States Parties. While the conclusions, recommendations, or general 

comments issued by the Disabilities Committee could in some instances reflect established customary international law, the Disabilities Committee has no authority to create customary international law, and such statements by the Disabilities Committee 

do not, in and of themselves, constitute customary international 

law, as the sixth understanding in the resolution of advice and consent makes clear. 

States Parties to the Convention are not required to give greater 

weight to the interpretation of the Convention by the Disabilities 

Committee than they do their own interpretation. Further, they are 

not required to conform their interpretations or make them consistent with those of the Disabilities Committee. 

D. Parental Rights 

The committee closely reviewed the ‘‘best interests of the child’’ 

standard set forth in Article 7 of the Convention, including whether 

U.S. ratification of the Convention could negatively impact parental 

rights with respect to disabled children, including parents who opt 

to home-school disabled children. The Department of Justice testified unequivocally that parental rights would not be hindered in 

any way. In response to written questions for the record, Senior 

Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Eve 

Hill stated that ‘‘[i]n light of the federalism and private conduct 

reservations, among others, there would be no change to Federal, 

State or local law regarding the ability of parents in the United 

States to make decisions about how to raise or educate their children as a result of ratification.’’ To emphasize the unified views of 

the Senate and the executive branch on this issue, the committee 

unanimously agreed to include the seventh understanding in the 

resolution of advice and consent, which makes clear that the term 

or principle of the ‘‘best interests of the child’’ as used in Article 

7(2) will be applied and interpreted to be coextensive with its application and interpretation under United States law, and that nothing in Article 7 requires a change to existing United States law. 

E. Support for the Convention 

The President has expressed his strong support for U.S. ratification of the Convention. In addition, the committee has received letters of support for the Convention from former President George 

H.W. Bush, former Senator Bob Dole, and a wide range of affected 

10 

groups and associations, including: ACCSES; Advocacy Center 

(Louisiana); African Methodist Episcopal Church Connectional 

Health Commission; AHEAD—Association on Higher Education 

and Disability; Air Force Sergeants Association; Air Force Women 

Officers Associated; Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program; Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing; 

American Academy of Audiology; American Association of People 

with Disabilities; American Association on Health Disability; American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities; 

American Baptist Home Missions Societies; American Bar Association; American Council of the Blind; American Council of the Blind; 

American Counseling Association; American Foundation for the 

Blind; American GI Forum; American Muslim Health Professionals; American Psychological Association; American Society for 

Deaf Children; American Speech Language-Hearing Association; 

American Speech-Language Hearing Association; American Therapeutic Recreation Association; Americans Association of People 

with Disabilities; AMVETS; Anti-Defamation League; Arizona Center for Disability Law; Association for Assistive Technology Act 

Programs; Association of Jewish Family & Children’s Agencies; Association of the United States Navy; Association of University Centers on Disabilities; Autism National Committee; B’nai B’rith International; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Blinded Veterans 

Association; Brain Injury Association of America; Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America; Christian Church of Disciples of Christ (Disciple Home Missions); Christian Reformed 

Church in North America (Disability Concerns); Client Assistance 

Program and Protection & Advocacy (American Samoa); Community Legal Aid Society (Delaware); Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf; Consortium for 

Citizens with Disabilities; Council for Exceptional Children; Council of American Instructors of the Deaf Council of Parent Attorneys 

and Advocates; Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation; Daniel Jordan Fiddle Foundation; Deaf and Hard of 

Hearing Alliance; Disability Law & Advocacy Center of Tennessee; 

Disability Law Center (Massachusetts); Disability Law Center 

(Utah); Disability Law Center of Alaska; Disability Law Center; 

Disability Rights California; Disability Rights Center (Arkansas); 

Disability Rights Center (Maine); Disability Rights Center (New 

Hampshire); Disability Rights Center of Kansas;Disability Rights 

Center of Virgin Islands; Disability Rights Education and Defense 

Fund; Disability Rights Florida; Disability Rights Idaho; Disability 

Rights Iowa; Disability Rights Mississippi; Disability Rights Montana; Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania; Disability Rights 

New Jersey; Disability Rights New Mexico; Disability Rights North 

Carolina; Disability Rights Oregon; Disability Rights Texas; Disability Rights Vermont; Disability Rights Washington; Disability 

Rights Wisconsin; Disabled American Veterans; Disciples Justice 

Action Network; Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children; Easter Seals; Epilepsy Foundation; Equal 

Rights for Persons with Disabilities International, Inc. Equip for 

Equality (Illinois); Family Voices; Georgia Advocacy Office; Goodwill Industries International; Guam Legal Services Corporation; 

Hands and Voices; Hawaii Disability Rights Center; Hearing 

Health Foundation; Hearing Loss Association of America; Hindu 

11 

American Foundation; IDEA Infant Toddler Coordinators Association; Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services; International 

Hearing Association; Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America 

Jewish War Veterans; Islamic society of North America; Jewish 

Council for Public Affairs; Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago; Kentucky Protection and Advocacy; L’Arche USA; Lutheran 

Services in America Disability Network; Maryland Disability Law 

Center; Mental Health America; Michigan Protection and Advocacy 

Services; Military Officers Association of America; Minnesota Disability Law Center; Missouri Protection and Advocacy Services; 

Muslim Public Affairs Council; Nation Council of Jewish Women; 

National Alliance of Mental Illness; National Association for Black 

Veterans; National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities; National Association of Head Injury Administrators; National Association of States United for Aging and Disabilities; National Association of School Psychologists; National Association of 

State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services; National 

Association of State Directors of Special Education; National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church of Disciples of Christ; 

National Council of Jewish Women; National Council on Disability; 

National Council on Independent Living; National Council on the 

Churches of Christ in the USA; National Court Reports Association; National Disability Rights Network; National Down Syndrome 

Congress; National Down Syndrome Society; National Guard Association of the United States; National Military Family Association; 

National Multiple Sclerosis Society; National Rehabilitation Association; Native American Disability Law Center; Nebraska Advocacy Services Nevada Disability Advocacy & Law Center; NETWORK—a National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; New York State 

Commission on Quality of Care & Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities; North Dakota Protection & Advocacy Project; Northern 

Marianas Protection & Advocacy Systems; Office of Protection and 

Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities (Connecticut); Office of the 

Governor/Ombudsman for Persons with Disabilities (Puerto 

Rico);Ohio Legal Rights Service; Oklahoma Disability Law Center; 

Paralyzed Veterans of America; Perkins School for the Blind; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Office of Public Witness; Protection and 

Advocacy for People with Disabilities (South Carolina); Rabbinical 

Assembly; Reformed Church in America (Disability Concerns); Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf; Rhode Island Disability Law Center; South Dakota Advocacy Services; Special Olympics; TASH; 

Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc.; The 

Advocacy Institute; The American Legion; The Arc of the United 

States; The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund; The 

Jewish Disability Network; The Jewish Federations of North America; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; The 

Legal Center (Colorado); The Rabbinical Assembly; The Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America; UJA-Federation of New York; Union of Reform Judaism; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; United Cerebral 

Palsy; United Church of Christ (Justice Witness Ministries); United 

Methodist General Board of Church and Society United Sates 

International Council on Disabilities; United Spinal Association; 

United States International Council on Disabilities; United States 

Olympic Committee; United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; 

12 

University Legal Services (District of Columbia); Veterans for Common Sense; Veterans of Foreign Wars; Veterans of Modern Warfare; VetsFirst; Vietnam Veterans of America; West Virginia Advocates; Women’s Rabbinic Network; Wounded Warrior Project; and 

the Wyoming Protection and Advocacy System. (Copies of letters 

received by the committee are included in Annex 4.) 

F. Discussion regarding the Resolution of Advice and Consent 

The committee has included a number of reservations, understandings and declarations in the resolution of advice and consent. 

The committee notes that Article 46 of the Convention makes clear 

that reservations to the treaty are permitted, provided that they 

are not incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. 

1. Reservations 

Section (a) of the resolution contains three reservations. 

Federalism. The first reservation addresses federalism issues. Article 4(1) of the Convention states that the provisions of the Convention ‘‘shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions.’’ Because certain provisions of the Convention concern matters traditionally governed by state law rather 

than federal law, and because in very limited instances some state 

and local standards are less vigorous than the Convention would 

require, a reservation is required to preserve the existing balance 

between federal and state jurisdiction over these matters. 

Non-Regulation of Private Conduct. The second reservation concerns the extent of the United States obligations under the Convention with regard to private conduct. Although the United States 

generally and broadly applies nondiscrimination laws to private entities with respect to operation in public spheres of life, some laws 

set a threshold before their protections are triggered. For example, 

selected employment-related civil rights laws apply only to employers that have 15 or more employees. Thus, existing legislation does 

not extend to absolutely all private discrimination against persons 

with disabilities, such as actions by a sole proprietor or rental of 

a single-family home. Further, individual privacy and freedom from 

governmental interference in certain private conduct are also recognized as among the fundamental values of our free and democratic 

society. Accordingly, a reservation is required to make clear that 

the United States does not accept any obligation under the Convention to enact legislation or take any other measures with respect 

to private conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and 

laws of the United States. The committee notes that in a written 

response for the record, the Department of State and the Department of Justice confirmed that in light of this reservation, ratification of the Disabilities Convention would not impose any new requirements on employers exempted by the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Torture, Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment. The third reservation concerns the extent of the United States obligations under 

Article 15 (Freedom from Torture or Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading 

Treatment or Punishment). As Article 15 of the Convention covers 

the same subject matter as Articles 2 and 16 of the United Nations 

Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or DegradVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
13 

ing Treatment or Punishment and Article 7 of the International 

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the third reservation makes 

clear that the obligations of the United States under Article 15 of 

the Convention shall be subject to the same reservations and understandings that apply to U.S. ratification of those two treaties. 

2. Understandings 

Section (b) of the resolution contains eight understandings. 

First Amendment. The first understanding makes clear that the 

Convention, including Article 8, does not authorize or require legislation or other action that would restrict the right of free speech, 

expression, and association protected by the Constitution and laws 

of the United States of America. 

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The second understanding 

makes clear that with respect to the application of certain economic, social and cultural rights set forth in specific articles of the 

Convention, the United States understands that its obligations are 

only to prevent discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of any such rights insofar as they are recognized and implemented under U.S. federal law. 

Equal Employment Opportunity. The third understanding makes 

clear that the Convention does not require the adoption of a comparable worth framework for persons with disabilities. The committee notes that in a written response for the record, the Department of State and the Department of Justice confirmed their view 

that current U.S. law is consistent with the language in Article 27 

regarding equal pay for work of equal value. 

U.S. Military Departments. The fourth understanding concerns 

Article 27 of the Convention and the obligation to take appropriate 

steps to afford to individuals with disabilities the right to equal access to equal work, including nondiscrimination in hiring and promotion of employment of persons with disabilities in the public sector. Under current U.S. law, certain departments of the U.S. military charged with defense of the national security are exempted 

from liability under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The understanding makes clear that the United States understands the obligations of Article 27 to take appropriate steps as not affecting hiring, promotion, or other terms or conditions of employment of uniformed employees in the U.S. military departments and that Article 2 does not recognize rights in this regard that exceed those 

rights available under U.S. federal law. 

Definitions. The fifth understanding clarifies that the terms ‘‘disability,’’ ‘‘persons with disabilities,’’ and ‘‘undue burden’’ (terms 

that are not defined in the Convention), ‘‘discrimination on the 

basis of disability,’’ and ‘‘reasonable accommodation’’ are defined for 

the United States of America coextensively with the definitions of 

such terms pursuant to relevant United States law. 

Article 34 Committee. The sixth understanding concerns the 

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, established 

under Article 34 of the Convention. It clarifies with particularity 

the limited powers of that Committee, including that it has no authority to compel actions by states parties, and the United States 

does not consider conclusions, recommendations, or general comments issued by the Committee as constituting customary interVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
14 

national law or to be legally binding on the United States in any 

manner. 

Health Programs and Procedures. The seventh understanding 

clarifies that the Convention is a nondiscrimination instrument, 

and that therefore nothing in the Convention, including Article 25, 

addresses the provision of any particular health program or procedure. Rather, the Convention requires that health programs and 

procedures are provided to individuals with disabilities on a nondiscriminatory basis. 

Best Interest of the Child. The eighth understanding concerns the 

‘‘best interests of the child’’ standard set forth in Article 7(2) of the 

Convention. It clarifies that the term or principle of the ‘‘best interests of the child’’ as used in Article 7(2), will be applied and interpreted to be coextensive with its application and interpretation 

under United States law, and that consistent with this understanding, nothing in Article 7 requires a change to existing United 

States law. 

3. Declarations 

Section (c) of the resolution contains two declarations. 

Non Self-Executing. The first declaration states that the provisions of the Convention are not self-executing. This reflects the 

shared understanding of the committee and the executive branch 

that the provisions of the Treaty are not self-executing, are not directly enforceable in U.S. courts, and do not confer private rights 

of action enforceable in the United States. 

U.S. Law Complies. The second declaration provides that, in view 

of the reservations to be included in the instrument of ratification, 

current United States law fulfills or exceeds the obligations of the 

Convention for the United States. As discussed in section VI above, 

the committee is satisfied that, in view of the reservations in the 

resolution of advice and consent and the comprehensive network of 

existing federal and state disability laws and enforcement mechanisms, no additional implementing legislation is necessary for the 

United States to comply with the Convention. 

VIII. TEXT OF RESOLUTION OF ADVICE AND CONSENT TO

RATIFICATION

Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), 

That the Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the 

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted by 

the United Nations General Assembly on December 13, 2006, and 

signed by the United States of America on June 30, 2009 (‘‘the Convention’’) (Treaty Doc. 112–7), subject to the reservations of subsection (a), the understandings of subsection (b), and the declarations of subsection (c). 

(a) RESERVATIONS.—The advice and consent of the Senate to the 

ratification of the Convention is subject to the following reservations, which shall be included in the instrument of ratification: 

(1) This Convention shall be implemented by the Federal 

Government of the United States of America to the extent that 

it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the state and local governments; to the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the obligations of the 

15 

United States of America under the Convention are limited to 

the Federal Government’s taking measures appropriate to the 

Federal system, which may include enforcement action against 

state and local actions that are inconsistent with the Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or other Federal 

laws, with the ultimate objective of fully implementing the 

Convention. 

(2) The Constitution and laws of the United States of America establish extensive protections against discrimination, 

reaching all forms of governmental activity as well as significant areas of non-governmental activity. Individual privacy 

and freedom from governmental interference in certain private 

conduct are also recognized as among the fundamental values 

of our free and democratic society. The United States of America understands that by its terms the Convention can be read 

to require broad regulation of private conduct. To the extent it 

does, the United States of America does not accept any obligation under the Convention to enact legislation or take other 

measures with respect to private conduct except as mandated 

by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. 

(3) Article 15 of the Convention memorializes existing prohibitions on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading 

treatment or punishment contained in Articles 2 and 16 of the 

United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, 

Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and 

in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political 

Rights (ICCPR), and further provides that such protections 

shall be extended on an equal basis with respect to persons 

with disabilities. To ensure consistency of application, the obligations of the United States of America under Article 15 shall 

be subject to the same reservations and understandings that 

apply for the United States of America with respect to Articles 

1and 16 of the CAT and Article 7 of the ICCPR. 

(b) UNDERSTANDINGS.—The advice and consent of the Senate to 

the ratification of the Convention is subject to the following understandings, which shall be included in the instrument of ratification: 

(1) The United States of America understands that this Convention, including Article 8 thereof, does not authorize or require legislation or other action that would restrict the right of 

free speech, expression, and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. 

(2) Given that under Article 1 of the Convention ‘‘[t]he purpose of the present Convention is to promote, protect, and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities,’’ with respect to the application of the Convention to matters related to 

economic, social, and cultural rights, including in Articles 4(2), 

24, 25, 27, 28 and 30, the United States of America understands that its obligations in this respect are to prevent discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of any 

such rights insofar as they are recognized and implemented 

under U.S. Federal law. 

(3) Current U.S. law provides strong protections for persons 

with disabilities against unequal pay, including the right to 

equal pay for equal work. The United States of America underVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
16 

stands the Convention to require the protection of rights of individuals with disabilities on an equal basis with others, including individuals in other protected groups, and does not require adoption of a comparable worth framework for persons 

with disabilities. 

(4) Article 27 of the Convention provides that States Parties 

shall take appropriate steps to afford to individuals with disabilities the right to equal access to equal work, including nondiscrimination in hiring and promotion of employment of persons with disabilities in the public sector. Current interpretation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 exempts 

U.S. Military Departments charged with defense of the national security from liability with regard to members of the 

uniformed services. The United States of America understands 

the obligations of Article 27 to take appropriate steps as not 

affecting hiring, promotion, or other terms or conditions of employment of uniformed employees in the U.S. Military Departments, and that Article 27 does not recognize rights in this regard that exceed those rights available under U.S. Federal law. 

(5) The United States of America understands that the terms 

‘‘disability,’’ ‘‘persons with disabilities,’’ and ‘‘undue burden’’ 

(terms that are not defined in the Convention), ‘‘discrimination 

on the basis of disability,’’ and ‘‘reasonable accommodation’’ are 

defined for the United States of America coextensively with the 

definitions of such terms pursuant to relevant United States 

law. 

(6) The United States of America understands that the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, established 

under Article 34 of the Convention, is authorized under Article 

36 to ‘‘consider’’ State Party Reports and to ‘‘make such suggestions and general recommendations on the report as it may 

consider appropriate.’’ Under Article 37, the Committee ‘‘shall 

give due consideration to ways and means of enhancing national capacities for the implementation of the present Convention.’’ The United States of America understands that the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has no authority to compel actions by states parties, and the United 

States of America does not consider conclusions, recommendations, or general comments issued by the Committee as constituting customary international law or to be legally binding on 

the United States in any manner. 

(7) The United States of America understands that the Convention is a nondiscrimination instrument. Therefore, nothing 

in the Convention, including Article 25, addresses the provision 

of any particular health program or procedure. Rather, the 

Convention requires that health programs and procedures are 

provided to individuals with disabilities on a nondiscriminatory 

basis. 

(8) The United States of America understands that, for the 

United States of America, the term or principle of the ‘‘best interests of the child’’ as used in Article 7(2), will be applied and 

interpreted to be coextensive with its application and interpretation under United States law. Consistent with this understanding, nothing in Article 7 requires a change to existing 

United States law. 

17 

(c) DECLARATIONS.—The advice and consent of the Senate to the 

ratification of the Convention is subject to the following declarations: 

The United States of America declares that the provisions of 

the Convention are not self-executing. 

The Senate declares that, in view of the reservations to be 

included in the instrument of ratification, current United 

States law fulfills or exceeds the obligations of the Convention 

for the United States of America. 

X. MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATORS RISCH, RUBIO, INHOFE, DEMINT, AND LEE

During the foundational years of our country, the leaders who 

charted its course warned us about foreign entanglements that 

would undermine our sovereignty and threaten our domestic affairs. So strong was his concern that President George Washington 

focused part of his farewell address on this issue. President Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, stated: 

Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none. 

The Founders wisely cautioned future generations of Americans 

against foreign entanglements such as the U.N. Convention on the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The admirable goal of advancing the interests of disabled people does not necessitate ascension 

to an international treaty that will assume the same legal authority as the Constitution upon ratification. 

The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate for 

treaty ratification, which demonstrates the seriousness and concern 

the framers of the Constitution held for such international accords. 

They sought to ensure these agreements were comprehensively 

scrutinized, overwhelmingly supported, and ratified only when vital 

U.S. national interests were advanced. 

The Foreign Relations Committee passed this Convention out of 

committee just two months after it was first presented to the Senate. Members of the Committee were given one opportunity to discuss the merits of and their concerns with the treaty in a single 

hearing that included both proponents of the treaty and opposition 

witnesses. We voted on the Resolution of Ratification shortly thereafter. To say the least, this treaty has not been properly or thoroughly scrutinized. Furthermore, not all the members of the committee have full confidence that the language of the treaty or the 

Resolution of Ratification will fully protect the interests or the sovereignty of the United States. 

Language in the Convention that specifically references domestic 

issues outside the realm of ′′disabilities′′ requires further explanation. Article 25(a) of the Convention addresses the range and 

quality of health care, including ′′sexual and reproductive health′′. 

The previous Administration found it necessary to submit statements explicitly declaring that these terms do not include abortion. 

Poland, Malta, and Monaco made similar reservations when they 

signed the treaty. However, no language defining sexual and reproductive health has been placed in the Administration’s instrument 

of ratification, and an attempt to do so in the Foreign Relations 

Committee was defeated. We are particularly concerned about this 

18 

issue because Secretary Clinton stated in 2009 in front of the 

House Foreign Affairs Committee that: 

We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women’s health, and reproductive health includes access to abortion, that I believe should be safe, 

legal, and rare. 

Abortion remains a highly controversial issue in the United 

States, and we strongly believe it should be determined by State 

and local governments, not at an international level. 

Through the admission of this Administration we know the treaty will not improve the rights of the disabled in the United States. 

Our country has already set the highest standard for treatment of 

and assistance to the disabled; so much so that the drafters of this 

Convention used U.S. laws and regulations to build its framework. 

As for the disabled in other countries, there is little evidence available to suggest this Convention will assist other nations’ efforts to 

improve their disabilities standards. Of the 117 member countries, 

the Convention’s committee only has issued recommendations for 

improvements to three countries: Tunisia, Spain, and Malta. 

The United States Constitution guarantees certain rights to the 

American people—rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of 

worship, and freedom from slavery. The United States Constitution 

does not provide the right to be subjected to an action of another 

person or group—nor should any treaty or alliance to which the 

United States subjects itself. Should the United States accede to 

this treaty, we will be obligated to write a status report every four 

years regarding our disability laws and receive criticism and recommendations from a committee of representatives from countries 

that have lower standards for the disabled than our own. This undermines our sovereignty and our Constitution. According to Article 35 of the Convention, this report must include a list and description of measures taken to fulfill the obligations of the treaty. 

We do not know the scope of this report or its financial and labor 

costs to the American taxpayer. 

As noted in hearing testimony, similar committees born of other 

United Nations conventions have an extensive record of overstepping their authority and making recommendations that are contrary to the interests and values of the United States. For example, 

the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issued 

a report in 2008 that addressed issues well beyond the scope of its 

mandate, such as U.S policies regarding the death penalty, voting 

rights, and detention at Guantanamo Bay. The Committee associated with the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women brashly issued recommendations regarding the legalization of prostitution, gender quotas, and increased termination of pregnancies. 

Proponents of this treaty believe its ratification would signal to 

the world our commitment to advancing the interests of those with 

disabilities. The U.S. Senate should not ratify this or any other 

treaty on these grounds. In this particular instance, the United 

States enjoys the moral high ground because we lead the world in 

advancing the interests of the disabled. We rightly reject the idea 

that our moral authority in the world is ever derived through ascension to subjective international conventions. 

19 

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states: 

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties. 

The very purpose of a treaty is to advance a specific U.S. security 

or economic interest, and the United States should only join those 

treaties that make us a stronger or safer nation. In no way do we 

take issue with the goal of promoting higher standards for the 

treatment of disabled people. However, this Convention is not essential to the security or economic interests of the United States. 

We firmly believe that the issues concerned in this Convention 

would be better addressed in a format that would not require the 

ratification of a legally binding international treaty that would 

carry the same authority as the Constitution. 

(21) 

X. ANNEX 1.—CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH

DISABILITIES (TREATY DOC. 112–7) 

Thursday, July 12, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m., in room 

SD–G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John F. Kerry 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Kerry, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, 

Durbin, Lugar, Corker, Risch, DeMint, Isakson, Barrasso, and Lee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN KERRY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. The hearing will come to order. 

Thank you all very much for being here today. 

We are meeting to examine the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We are very grateful to have a number of 

our colleagues who have had a longtime interest in this prepared 

to testify. And I know that there will be other Senators arriving. 

Senator Lugar has told me he is going to be a little bit late, but 

he will be here. 

It has been 22 years since the Americans with Disabilities Act 

knocked down barriers to employment and Government service 

here at home, and Senator Harkin played such a key role, along 

with my former colleague Senator Ted Kennedy, in achieving that 

goal and many others. Now it is time to do the same for Americans 

with disabilities when they travel overseas. 

The world obviously faces many competing crises, and all of them 

contend for attention and for leadership. But I believe very strongly 

that we have a responsibility on this committee to ensure that 

issues deserving attention also receive a focus. 

As the author and civil rights activist James Baldwin reminds 

us, ‘‘Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can 

be changed until it is faced.’’ 

I couldn’t agree more. All Americans have an inherent right to 

be treated as equal citizens of our Nation. But the historic march 

toward a better, fairer America can come about only if we are willing to make those with certain challenges the focus of our work. 

Like most of you, I have witnessed over time firsthand the challenges and discrimination of people with disabilities and the many 

ways in which they are prevented from fully participating in activities that most of us are privileged to take for granted. 

22 

That is why early on in my career in the Senate, when I first 

came here, I served with Senator Lowell Weicker on the HELP 

Committee, what is now the HELP Committee. And I was chairman for a brief period of time of something back then 

anachronistically called the Handicapped Subcommittee. And we 

actually did the first work that unleashed technology and has produced assistive devices that help people with challenges to be able 

to speak and communicate. 

I am proud of that, and I cosponsored the Ending the Medicare 

Disability Waiting Period Act to phase out a 24-month waiting period for individuals with disabilities to become eligible for Medicare 

benefits. That is why I happily worked with Senator Pryor on the 

21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, which 

improves access to audio and visual materials for the deaf and the 

blind. 

And it is why I recently introduced the Children’s Mental Health 

Accessibility Act to provide States an option to serve children and 

adolescents on Medicaid with intensive home or community-based 

mental health treatment services and also to replace the also 

anachronistically term ‘‘mentally retarded’’ in the Social Security 

Act with the more appropriate term ‘‘intellectually disabled.’’ 

So this is a march that goes on for all of us. We all learn, and 

we all eventually, I hope, make progress. I have heard from countless advocates on this issue, the issue we are here to talk about 

today, from the Perkins School of the Blind in my home State to 

disabled Americans across the country to veterans groups, all of 

whom tell me this treaty will make a difference in their daily lives. 

It is not only the right thing to do. It is also the smart thing to 

do. And it will extend essential protections and liberties to millions 

of U.S. citizens with disabilities when they travel overseas, including our disabled service men and women and all veterans. 

As I understand it, there really are only upsides to joining this 

Convention, which enshrines the principles of the ADA. The United 

States is already a leader in domestic disability rights protection, 

and joining the Convention will provide a critical tool as we work 

with other countries to advocate what they follow and, hopefully, 

that they will follow our lead and ensure that people with disabilities are free to live and work and travel wherever they want. 

This is important. Across the developing world, persons with disabilities face indignities and prejudice on a daily basis. They are 

prevented from attending schools, subject to discriminatory hiring 

practices, often unable to enter public buildings, safely cross a 

street, or even ride a public bus. 

Americans may not witness these discriminatory acts in our daily 

lives, but they sting our conscience from half a world away. Ratifying the Convention would strengthen our hand as we push for 

higher standards internationally, standards to which all of us 

should aspire. 

Twenty-two years ago, President George H.W. Bush signed the 

ADA into law with the promise of fostering full and equal access 

to civic, economic, and social life for individuals with disabilities. 

Upon its passage, Senator Ted Kennedy, who played the role that 

I described, said, ‘‘The act has the potential to become one of the 

great civil rights laws of our generation. This legislation is a bill 

23 

of rights for the disabled, and America will be better and a fairer 

nation because of it.’’ 

That was the spirit that animated passage of the ADA, and it is 

the same spirit that has inspired a bipartisan group of Senators to 

work tirelessly in support of this Convention. I especially want to 

acknowledge the effort here of three longtime Senate leaders on 

disabilities issues. 

Senator Harkin, who is here now, who chaired the HELP Committee and been such an extraordinary leader on this issue and on 

the ADA itself. Senator Durbin, who will be here and who will 

chair part of this because I have some conflicts, but we will share 

that responsibility. And Senator McCain. And we are grateful for 

their leadership. 

I am also pleased that several other members of this committee—Senator Barrasso, Senator Coons, and Senator Udall—are 

part of this bipartisan group. They are each great champions for 

persons with disabilities, and I know that they are going to work 

to do whatever it takes to move this process forward and help deserving Americans enjoy the full measure of their rights. 

To help us explore these issues, we have three excellent panels 

of witnesses. On the first panel, we are pleased to be joined by our 

friends and colleagues I mentioned, John McCain and Tom Harkin. 

In addition to his own views, Senator McCain will be sharing with 

us a statement from former majority leader Bob Dole. 

On our second panel, we welcome Judith Heumann, Special Adviser for International Disability Rights at the State Department, 

and Eve Hill, Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for 

Civil Rights at the Justice Department. 

And on the final panel, we have Richard Thornburgh, former Attorney General of the United States and of counsel to the law firm 

K&L Gates. We have John Wodatch, the former Chief of the Disability Rights Section at the Civil Rights Division, the Justice Department. Steven Groves, the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow 

at the Heritage Foundation, and John Lancaster, a Vietnam veteran, retired executive director of the National Council on Independent Living, and a respected advocate for the disabled community. 

Rounding out the panel, we have Michael Farris, chairman and 

general counsel of the Home School Legal Defense Association and 

chancellor at the Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, VA. 

So welcome to all of you, and we look forward to your testimony. 

In the absence of Senator Lugar and with the permission of Senator Corker, if I may, I want to turn to Senator Barrasso, who has 

been advocating for this. And we appreciate his bipartisan efforts 

in that regard, and I ask him to make some opening comments. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate you holding this hearing today to examine such an 

important effort, this Convention. 

The United States has opened the door for millions of Americans 

to actively participate and contribute to our great country. Through 

numerous U.S. laws and enforcement measures, our Nation has 

24 

worked to end discrimination and breaking down barriers that prevent full participation of all members of our society. 

We have raised the conscience of our Nation regarding disabilities and the impact that they have on people’s lives. The fair treatment of citizens of the United States is paramount. Every citizen, 

regardless of obstacles in their lives, should have this opportunity 

to work, to live, to fully take part in our society. These are the 

ideals of the American people. 

It is important to our citizens and individuals with disabilities 

across the globe that these fundamental values are advanced 

worldwide. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is based on the same principles as the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

The general principles embodied in this Convention include nondiscrimination, equal opportunity, independence, accessibility, 

human dignity, and full and effective participation and inclusion in 

society. So I strongly support these principles and believe that they 

should be promoted by the international community. 

The Convention offers the United States a forum to utilize our 

wealth of knowledge and practical experiences to influence our nations in recognizing the rights of people with disabilities. It can 

help in advancing policies so Americans with disabilities can receive the same protections while working, studying, and traveling 

abroad, including, and very importantly, our veterans. 

Ratification of the Convention also demonstrates our Nation’s ongoing commitment to equality and opportunity for individuals with 

disabilities. 

Chairman Kerry, I do ask that a letter from President George 

Herbert Walker Bush expressing his support for U.S. ratification of 

the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities be placed 

in the record. I have that letter with me. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be. 

Senator BARRASSO. And Mr. Chairman, I also ask that another 

letter I have, signed by 21 veterans and military organizations in 

favor of U.S. ratification of the Convention, also be placed in the 

record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[EDITOR’S NOTE.—The two letters mentioned above can be found in 

Annex II.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I welcome our guests. I welcome all those who are here in attendance and those testifying. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this vital hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks very much. 

And it is unusual. I don’t usually do this, but since Senator Durbin has agreed to chair part of this because of my conflicts, I just 

want to ask him if he has any opening comment. He has been particularly involved also in helping to bring us here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS 

Senator DURBIN. Thanks, Senator Kerry. 

I want to thank Senator Barrasso—I caught the end of your 

statement here—for his strong support. 

25 

Particularly, thanks to our first two witnesses here. Senator 

McCain, I have worked with him in putting together a bipartisan 

coalition supporting this. And Tom Harkin. On the Democratic 

side, there is no person who has a stronger reputation and history 

and record when it comes to standing up for people with disabilities. 

Having you here as a lead-off witness, Tom, is a signal to all of 

us that this is the real thing. I can think back to when you and 

Senator Dole really stepped forward and brought America into a 

position of leadership when it came to standing up for disabled people all around the world. 

We now have 153 nations that have signed on to this Convention 

or treaty; 117 have ratified. It is time for the United States to step 

up and to say that the principles that we fought for in the Americans with Disabilities Act are worth fighting for all over the world. 

To make sure that when our disabled veterans travel overseas, 

they have accessibility and the kind of respect that they deserve, 

to make sure that people all around the world have access to places 

where they are currently excluded. 

You know personally, both of you do, the amazing stories of people with disabilities. When given a chance and given accessibility, 

they have made America a stronger nation and will make this a 

better world. I want the United States to be at the front of the 

table in talking about leading the world into the 21st century and 

into a new generation of thinking. 

We can build on the Americans with Disabilities Act. I am honored that former Senator Dole has become such a major spokesman 

in terms of pushing this forward. I am honored that the veterans 

groups have stepped up and said this means a lot to those who 

risked their lives for America and gave not only life, but limb many 

times. They want to see this done. 

So thank you, Senator Kerry. I know your busy schedule and 

commitment to other issues, but this is historic. And it is strongly 

bipartisan, as evidenced by the turnout today and by the first witnesses. I am honored to be part of putting it together with Senator 

McCain. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Durbin. 

Senator Harkin, if you would lead off, by matter of seniority, and 

Senator McCain. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA 

Senator HARKIN. Good morning. 

First of all, I want to thank Chairman Kerry and the committee 

for holding this hearing, seeking input about the importance of the 

U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or 

CRPD, as it is known. And I appreciate the opportunity to testify 

on an issue that has been a central priority of mine since I first 

came to the Congress in 1974 and the Senate in 1984. 

Mr. Chairman, Senators of this committee, one of my greatest 

joys in the Senate has been my work over 30 years with Senators 

Dole and McCain, Senators Kennedy, Hatch, and many others on 

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 

26 

I also saw so many people here that were instrumental in its 

passage and its implementation after it was passed. 

I would be remiss if I didn’t recognize the former White House 

counsel Boyden Gray and all the great work he did in getting people together on this bill back in 1989 and 1990. Former Attorney 

General Dick Thornburgh, who was so instrumental in helping to 

pass this bill and implementation afterward. Former Congressman 

Tony Coelho. 

All of them here who just were so instrumental. And I am glad 

you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, Lowell Weicker, who may not be 

here, but he was one of the most instrumental persons in pushing 

this idea of a national civil rights law covering people with disabilities. 

And last, there are so many here that I met when I came in that 

were here at the beginning and, as I said, worked so hard to get 

this passed and implemented, I don’t have the time, I wouldn’t take 

the time to try to mention them all, Mr. Chairman. But let me try 

to honor all of those who are sitting back here who have been so 

instrumental in the full implementation of ADA over the last 22 

years by recognizing one person who is here and one spirit who is 

here. 

That is Yoshiko Dart who is here, and she always carries Justin 

Dart’s old cowboy hat. So Justin Dart is here also. Oh, Marca 

Bristo has his hat, I guess. I thought Yoshiko did. 

[Laughter.] 

So, again, I just honor all those who are here who were part of 

this whole effort over all these years. 

As Senator Barrasso said, the ADA stands for a simple proposition, that disability is a natural part of the human experience 

and that all people with disabilities have a right to make choices, 

pursue meaningful careers, and participate fully in all aspects of 

society. Thanks to the ADA, our country is a more welcoming place 

not just for people with a variety of disabilities, but for everyone. 

Twenty-two years ago this month, President Bush gathered hundreds of Americans with disabilities on the White House lawn for 

the ADA signing ceremony. At that time, he noted—and listen to 

this exact quote from President Bush: ‘‘This historic act is the 

world’s first comprehensive declaration of equality for people with 

disabilities—the first. Its passage has made the United States the 

international leader on this human rights issue.’’ 

Well, thanks to the ADA and other U.S. laws, America has 

shown the rest of the world how to honor the basic human rights 

of children and adults with disabilities; how to integrate them into 

society; how to remove barriers to full participation in activities 

that most Americans take for granted. 

Our support for disability rights has inspired a global movement. 

Think about that. It has inspired a global movement that led the 

United Nations to adopt the CRPD. Our legal framework influenced the substance of the Convention and is informing its implementation in 116 countries that I have, Senator Durbin, and also 

the European Union who have signed and ratified the CRPD. 

I am very grateful for the long history of leadership on both sides 

of the aisle—Senator Dole, Senator McCain—going way back even 

before the ADA. I want to acknowledge the leadership and support 

27 

of Senators Barrasso and Durbin, Moran, Coons, and Udall, all of 

whom have publicly expressed their strong support for ratification 

of the CRPD. 

I would also like to acknowledge the pro bono work of the Mayer 

Brown law firm and Carolyn Osolinik, who many of us remember 

was Senator Kennedy’s chief aide when we passed the Americans 

with Disabilities Act back in 1990. 

By ratifying this Convention, the United States will be reaffirming our commitment to our citizens with disabilities. As has been 

said a couple of times by Senators on the dais, Americans with disabilities, including disabled veterans, should be able to live and 

travel, to study, and to work abroad with the same freedoms and 

access that they enjoy here in America. 

And as the state parties to the Convention come together to 

grapple with the best ways to make progress and remove barriers, 

we should be at the table with them, helping them to learn from 

our experience. 

The administration has submitted reservations, understandings, 

and declarations that make clear that U.S. ratification will not require any changes in U.S. law and will have no fiscal impact. No 

fiscal impact. But my hope is that U.S. ratification will have a 

moral impact. 

My hope is that it will send a signal to the rest of the world that 

it is not OK to leave a baby with Down syndrome on the side of 

the road to die. It is not OK to warehouse adults with intellectual 

and psychiatric disabilities in institutions, chained to the bars of a 

cell, when their only ‘‘crime’’ is having a disability. 

That it is not OK to refuse to educate children because they are 

blind or deaf or use a wheelchair. That it is not OK to prevent disabled people from voting, getting married, owning property, having 

children. It is not OK to rebuild infrastructures in Iraq and Afghanistan and Haiti or other war-torn or disaster-stricken areas 

without improving the accessibility of the infrastructure at the 

same time. 

So I thank this committee for scheduling today’s hearing. I commend you all for recognizing the long history of bipartisan support 

for disability rights in this country. 

I urge the committee to report favorably on the treaty and recommend that the Senate give its advice and consent to ratification 

prior to July the 26th of 2012, the 22nd anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Harkin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN, CHAIRMAN, U.S. SENATE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS

Good Morning. I would like to thank Chairman Kerry and the committee for holding this hearing seeking input from others about the importance of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities or the ‘‘CRPD.’’ I appreciate this 

opportunity to testify today on an issue that has been a central priority for me since 

I was first elected to the Senate in 1984. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lugar, and members of the committee, one of 

my greatest joys in the Senate has been my work with Senators Dole, McCain, and 

others on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The ADA stands for 

a simple proposition—that disability is a natural part of the human experience and 

28 

that all people with disabilities have a right to make choices, pursue meaningful careers, and participate fully in all aspects of society. 

Thanks to the ADA, our country is a more welcoming place not just for people 

with a variety of disabilities, but for everyone. 

Twenty-two years ago this month, President Bush gathered hundreds of Americans with disabilities on the White House lawn for the ADA signing ceremony. At 

the time, he noted: ‘‘This historic act is the world’s first comprehensive declaration 

of equality for people with disabilities—the first. Its passage has made the United 

States the international leader on this human rights issue.’’ 

Thanks to the ADA and other U.S. laws, America has shown the rest of the world 

how to honor the basic human rights of children and adults with disabilities; how 

to integrate them into society; and how to remove barriers to their full participation 

in activities that most Americans take for granted. Our support for disability rights 

has inspired a global movement that led the United Nations to adopt the CRPD. 

Our legal framework influenced the substance of the Convention and is informing 

its implementation in the 117 countries that have signed and ratified the CRPD. 

I am very grateful for the long history of leadership of both Senators Dole and 

McCain on disability issues, going back to before the ADA. I also want to acknowledge the leadership and support of Senators Barrasso, Durbin, Moran, Coons, and 

Udall, all of whom have publicly expressed their strong support for ratification of 

the CRPD. 

By ratifying this Convention, the United States will be reaffirming our commitment to our citizens with disabilities. Americans with disabilities, including disabled 

veterans, should be able to live, travel, study and work abroad with the same freedoms and access that they enjoy in the United States. And as the state parties to 

the Convention come together to grapple with the best ways to make progress and 

remove barriers, we should be at the table with them helping them learn from our 

experience. 

The administration has submitted reservations, understandings and declarations 

that make clear that U.S. ratification of the CRPD will not require any change in 

U.S. law and will have no fiscal impact. My hope is that U.S. ratification of the 

CRPD will have a moral impact. My hope is that it will send a signal to the rest 

of the world that it is not okay to leave a baby with Down syndrome on the side 

of the road to die; not okay to warehouse adults with intellectual and psychiatric 

disabilities in institutions chained to the bars of a cell when their only ‘‘crime’’ is 

having a disability; not okay to refuse to educate children because they are blind 

or deaf or use a wheelchair; not okay to prevent disabled people from voting, getting 

married, owning property, or having children; not okay to rebuild infrastructures in 

Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, and other war-torn or disaster-stricken areas without improving the accessibility of the infrastructure at the same time. 

I thank this committee for scheduling today’s hearing. I commend you for recognizing the long history of bipartisan support for disability rights in this county. And 

I urge the committee to report favorably on the treaty and recommend that the Senate give its advice and consent to ratification. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Harkin. Appreciate that testimony. 

Senator McCain. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCAIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I, after hearing your eloquent statement and Dick’s and 

John Barrasso’s and Tom’s, I am reminded of my beloved friend, 

Morris Udall, who once said everything that could possibly be said 

about this has been said, only not everyone has said it. So I will 

try to be brief in my remarks and spend—I am really here to read 

a statement by our beloved friend and former colleague and leader, 

Bob Dole. 

And so, but I also would like just to take a moment to thank our 

warriors here who have been with us for the last 22 years not only 

in the passage of this legislation, but also in the long process of its 

implementation. 

29 

I want to thank Dick Durbin. I want to thank you, my old friend, 

Senator Kerry, and John, and everybody who has been involved. 

And Senator Moran and Tom Udall and others. 

And this is an example that from time to time, we can engage 

in a bipartisan effort in this body. 

There are two people who are not here who I think are really 

here in many respects, and one is our old friend, Justin Dart, who 

we all know was one of the great leaders in this effort. And his beloved wife is here. 

And the other, of course, is my old friend and combatant, Ted 

Kennedy, who played an incredibly important role on this and 

other issues. I enjoyed working with him, and I enjoyed working 

against him. 

[Laughter.] 

But I think his spirit is here today because he did have the ability of bringing people together, as we all know. 

Tony Coelho and Boyden Gray and Dick Thornburgh are here. I 

would like to thank them as well. 

I would just like to make two quick points, Mr. Chairman. One 

is I am proud to be pro-life. This is a pro-life piece of resolution, 

in my view, because too often children, as Tom pointed out, with 

disabilities are never allowed to live. 

I would also like to point out that it is—finally, I would like to 

mention that it is not an accident that literally every veterans organization in this country supports this legislation because it is our 

veterans, many of whom are coming home as we speak, that needed this legislation. And I think that when you travel around the 

world and you see the conflicts around the world—I just came from 

Libya, where 30,000 of their citizens were wounded in the conflict 

that, thank God, has just been over. And so many of them with disabilities. 

So I would argue that this resolution, this treaty is probably 

more important today in the world perhaps than it has been in the 

past. 

With that, I would like to read a letter from Bob Dole, which in 

his own unique way is, I think, rather moving. 

‘‘Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Lugar, and members of this committee, when 

I delivered my maiden speech on the Senate Floor on April 14, 1969, the anniversary of the day I was wounded in World War II, it was customary to speak about 

something in which you had a deep interest, and something about which you could 

offer some leadership. I chose to speak about a minority group, as I said then, the 

existence of which affects every person in our society, and the very fiber of our 

Nation. 

‘‘It was an exceptional group I joined during World War II, which no one joins 

by personal choice. It is a group that neither respects nor discriminates by age, sex, 

wealth, education, skin color, religious beliefs, political party, power, or prestige. 

That group, Americans with disabilities, has grown in size ever since. So, therefore, 

has the importance of maintaining access for people with disabilities to mainstream 

American life, whether it’s access to a job, an education, or registering to vote. 

‘‘When we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, it was not 

only one of the proudest moments of my career, it was a remarkable bipartisan 

achievement that made an impact on millions of Americans. The simple goal was 

to foster independence and dignity, and its reasonable accommodations enabled 

Americans with disabilities to contribute more readily to this great country. 

‘‘Americans led the world in developing disability public policy and equality and, 

while there are places that still have no rights for people with disabilities, many 

countries have followed our lead. In 1994, I wrote to the Secretary of State to ask 

that the United States include the status of people with disabilities in its annual 

30 

report on human rights. To its credit, the State Department acted, and, since then, 

has included a profile on the rights of people with disabilities in each country in 

the world. Some of the news is good, but, in too many countries, people with disabilities remain subject to discrimination. 

‘‘The United States supported approval of the Convention on the Rights of Persons 

with Disabilities (CRPD) in December 2006. On the anniversary of the ADA in 2009, 

the U.S. signed the CRPD. This landmark treaty requires countries around the 

world to affirm what are essentially core American values of equality, justice, and 

dignity. Now the package has been submitted to the Senate for your advice and consent. I want to express my personal support for U.S. ratification of the CRPD and 

to ask that you continue the proud American tradition of supporting the rights and 

inclusion of people with disabilities. 

‘‘U.S. ratification of the CRPD will improve physical, technological, and communication access outside the U.S., thereby helping to ensure that Americans—particularly, many thousands of disabled American veterans—have equal opportunities to 

live, work, and travel abroad. The treaty comes at no cost to the United States. In 

fact, it will create a new global market for accessibility goods. An active U.S. presence in implementation of global disability rights will promote the market for 

devices such as wheelchairs, smart phones, and other new technologies engineered, 

made, and sold by U.S. corporations. 

‘‘With the traditional reservations, understandings, and declarations that the 

Senate has adopted in the past, current U.S. law satisfies the requirements of the 

CRPD. The CRPD works to extend protections pioneered in the U.S. to the more 

than 1 billion people with disabilities throughout the world. This is an opportunity 

for the U.S. to join its allies—including Australia, Canada, France, Mexico, South 

Korea, the United Kingdom, and Germany—in continuing our historical leadership 

on disability rights. 

‘‘Passage of the ADA constituted a proud moment in U.S. history, when we joined 

together as a nation to stand up for a worthy cause. Now is the time to reaffirm 

the common goals of equality, access, and inclusion for Americans with disabilities— 

both when those affected are in the United States and outside of our country’s borders. I urge you to support U.S. ratification of this important treaty.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, you know that there is nothing that Bob Dole 

would have wanted more than to be here before this committee 

today. You also know that he has had his challenges in the past 

recent months and years. I hope that all of us will respect this 

magnificent American who came and served his country, was grievously wounded. He and our dear, beloved Senator Inouye were in 

the same hospital. 

And this is one thing I think that we could do for Bob Dole that 

would make him exceedingly proud. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN OF ARIZONA

Thank you for that introduction. I am pleased to come before the committee to 

offer my support for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and 

to be here on behalf of one of my closest friends, Bob Dole. Bob asked me to come 

before you and present his statement in support of this treaty. As you know, Bob 

has dedicated nearly his entire life to this country—through his military service and 

following that, many years in public service. 

Senator Durbin and I began discussing months ago how we can work together, 

in a bipartisan manner and build bipartisan support for ratification of this treaty. 

We have been working closely with Senators Moran, Barrasso, Coons, Tom Udall, 

and Harkin. The list of bipartisan supporters continues to grow. 

And there’s a good reason that the list of supporters is expanding. Protecting the 

rights of persons with disabilities, ANY persons, is not a political issue. It is a 

human issue, regardless of where in the world a disabled person strives to live a 

normal, independent life where basic rights and accessibilities are available. Disability rights and protections have always been a bipartisan issue and ratifying this 

treaty should be no different. 

Ratifying this treaty will continue our global leadership to protect and recognize 

the rights of people living with disabilities that began almost 22 years ago with the 

31 

enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In fact, the 22d anniversary of 

the act is later this month. 

Some may question why the U.S. needs to join the 117 other countries that have 

already ratified this treaty. 

As I have traveled around the world to many countries and areas of conflict, I 

have seen firsthand the many members of our Armed Forces who have become disabled in their service to our country. I have also seen the countless numbers of victims in these areas of conflict that become disabled and must try to return to and 

assimilate into their own societies, few of which have anywhere near the basic protections and opportunities for independence that people living with disabilities have 

in our country. In many cultures children born with disabilities don’t even have a 

chance. Ratifying this treaty affirms our leadership on disability rights and shows 

the rest of the world our leadership commitment continues. 

Further, every action that we have ever taken on disability policy has been bipartisan. Being able to live independently is a basic human dignity that we support 

and is a value that we can help advance internationally through ratification of this 

treaty. 

Many of you have served with Senator Dole and you know that he has been one 

of the true leaders on disability issues. And it is truly my honor to present his testimony in support of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, Senator McCain. 

I think the testimony that you have given personally, but most 

importantly, that you have just shared with us from Senator Dole 

could not be more important and significant with respect to this. 

I would hope that all of our colleagues would read his letter. We 

will certainly distribute it to every colleague and hope that it can 

have that impact. 

I had a wonderful visit with him just a few months ago, and we 

reminisced about the efforts that we did together, I think it was 

in the late 1980s, when the Little League was barring young kids 

with disabilities from actually participating in Little League. And 

we created now all across America, there is a physically challenged 

Little League, formal Little League participation. 

So Bob Dole has played just a critical role, and he is a tremendous role model and example as a leader. So I would hope that people will, in fact, heed that, and we thank you. 

Senator McCain, I cannot help but comment how much, as your 

good friend—and you and I have been through a lot of things together—how much it either disturbs me or confounds me that you 

take as much pleasure from working against those you enjoy working with. So we have got to work this out. 

[Laughter.] 

Let us continue doing that. Thanks for being here with us. 

I know you are busy. So you are excused. 

We invite the first panel up. If we could have the Honorable Judith Heumann, SpecialAadviser for International Disability Rights 

at the Department of State. And Ms. Eve Hill, Senior Counselor to 

the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. 

I am at this point, with your permission, going to turn it over 

to Senator Durbin to chair for a while. And then I will be back because I do want to get some questions in with respect to some of 

these things. 

Thank you. 

Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN [presiding]. Thank you very much, Chairman 

Kerry, and we will proceed with the first panel. 

[Pause.] 

32 

STATEMENT OF HON. JUDITH HEUMANN, SPECIAL ADVISER 

FOR INTERNATIONAL DISABILITY RIGHTS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. HEUMANN. Thank you, Senator Durbin and members of the 

committee. 

And thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 

which both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton strongly endorse. 

Ratification of the Disabilities Convention by the United States 

would, as we have heard before, result in a shining moment in this 

Nation’s enduring commitment to advancing and promoting disability rights both at home and abroad. 

I ask that my full statement be submitted for the record. 

Senator DURBIN. Without objection. 

Ms. HEUMANN. As the special adviser for international disability 

rights at the State Department, I firmly believe ratification will 

help us to advance U.S. interests abroad. 

I grew up at a time when our country was just beginning to realize the value of ensuring equality for persons with disabilities. At 

that time, we had only begun the process of recognizing that societies are stronger when they respect and promote the dignity and 

equality and contributions of disabled individuals. 

However, as a child, I did not have the benefit of accessible communities, inclusive schools, or accessible transportation. I am 64. I 

did not attend school until I was 9. And when I applied for my first 

job as a teacher, I was initially denied my certification simply because I could not walk. This was the official reason. 

Today, thanks to strong legislation and decades of enforcement, 

such blatant forms of discrimination are no longer permissible in 

the United States. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the 

majority of the 1 billion disabled people around the world or Americans with disabilities who live, work, serve, retire, study, and travel abroad. 

In developing countries, it is estimated that 90 percent of children with disabilities do not attend school. 

Many disabled children are killed at birth simply because of their 

disability. Basic physical access of disabled people is still a dream 

in many countries. 

In many countries, it is unfathomable that a significantly disabled person like me would ever leave their home, much less have 

a government job, wish to board an international flight, and where 

government buildings, hotels, and even bathrooms are not accessible. 

Against this backdrop of exclusion and discrimination is the vision of what we have achieved in the United States. That vision 

inspired the international community to draft this Disabilities Convention. At its very core, the Convention seeks to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy the same rights as everyone else. 

The Disabilities Convention is animated by the principles underlying U.S. disabilities law—inclusion, respect for human dignity 

and individual autonomy, accessibility, and equal enjoyment of 

rights. It does not create new rights for disabled people, and no 

new legislation would be required to implement the Convention if 

33 

ratified with the recommended, reservations, understandings, and 

declarations. 

Significantly, the United States would implement its obligations 

under existing law. Therefore, you may ask why should we bother 

to ratify? Simply put, ratification of the disabilities Convention will 

strengthen U.S. interests. It will promote tangible benefits for U.S. 

businesses and approximately 54 million Americans with disabilities who wish to live, work, serve, retire, study, and travel abroad. 

Only by ratifying the Convention will we put ourselves in the 

best position to influence our international partners to enhance disability rights, especially in such key areas as education, accessibility, and employment. Improved standards abroad will open up 

the world to Americans with disabilities and their families. 

Though I take great pride in the U.S. record, it is, frankly, difficult to advance the interests of Americans with disabilities and 

others when we, as the United States, have not ratified the Convention. Failure to ratify deprives us of a crucial tool to secure concrete improvements, such as fewer architectural barriers and more 

accessible air travel, in international practice, improvements that 

will afford greater protections, opportunities, and benefits to the 

millions of U.S. citizens, civilians and veterans, with disabilities 

who currently face barriers abroad. 

Ratification would also be good for American business. By encouraging other countries to join and implement the Convention, 

we would also help to level the playing field for U.S. companies. A 

U.S. role in shaping international standards would afford U.S. 

businesses increased opportunities to export innovative products 

and technologies. As accessibility standards become more harmonized, the competitive edge increases for U.S. companies even 

further with the opening of markets. 

In sum, ratification will be a significant step in our longstanding 

bipartisan tradition of support for the rights of disabled people. It 

will provide the United States with a critical platform to secure 

better international disability standards and promote equality of 

individuals with disabilities, including Americans who travel or live 

abroad. 

Quite simply, ratification is good for America and good for Americans, both for its profound impact on our diplomatic leadership and 

for its tangible benefits to everyday Americans. 

Finally, in keeping with America’s strong longstanding bipartisan tradition of support for the rights of persons with disabilities, 

ratification of the disabilities Convention is the right, smart, and 

just thing to do. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Heumann follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUDITH HEUMANN

Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Lugar, and members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning to speak in support of 

ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which both 

the President and the Secretary of State strongly endorse. Ratification of the Disabilities Convention by the United States would be a shining moment in this 

Nation’s enduring commitment to advancing and promoting disability rights both at 

home and abroad. I am privileged to have this opportunity to speak to you on behalf 

of the administration, drawing from my life-long personal and professional commitVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
34 

ment to promoting the rights of persons with disabilities in the United States and 

abroad. 

As the Special Adviser for International Disability Rights at the U.S. Department 

of State, I firmly believe ratification will help us to advance our diplomacy abroad, 

enabling us to highlight how our advances have helped improve the lives of millions 

of disabled people and their family members. I grew up at a time when our country 

was just beginning to realize the value of ensuring the rights of persons with disabilities. Thanks to unstinting leadership from parents and disabled people, and the 

advocacy of many people, including Members of Congress and disabled veterans, we 

had begun the process of recognizing that our society should respect and promote 

the dignity, equality, and contributions of disabled individuals. However, as a child 

I did not have the benefit of accessible communities, inclusive schools, or accessible 

transportation. Without even simple curb cuts, I wheeled in the streets amongst oncoming traffic. I could not ride our buses or trains. I was not allowed to go to school 

until I was 9 years old, and then received poor quality education segregated from 

the rest of my peers. When I applied for my first job as a teacher, I was initially 

denied my certification simply because I could not walk. 

Today, I am proud to say that such blatant forms of discrimination are no longer 

permissible in our society. The United States has been a leader in this area. With 

strong legislation and effective enforcement honed over more than four decades of 

experience, Americans with disabilities are respected and included in our society to 

a degree unrivalled in our history. We can live, work, and travel with our fellow 

citizens, and we see Americans with disabilities serving at the highest levels of government and industry. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the majority of 

the 1 billion disabled people around the world, or Americans with disabilities, including veterans, who live, work, serve, retire, study, travel, and reside abroad. In 

developing countries it is estimated that 90 percent of children with disabilities do 

not attend school. Many disabled children are killed at birth simply because of their 

disability. I know from my own international work that basic physical access for disabled people is still a dream in many countries, and that enduring cultural stigmas 

force people with disabilities, who yearn to work and contribute to their families and 

societies, into abject poverty. I have also experienced firsthand the frustration of 

traveling in places where it is unfathomable that a significantly disabled person like 

me would ever leave their home, much less wish to board an international flight. 

Against this backdrop of exclusion and discrimination is the vision of progress 

that we have achieved in the United States, made real through the rule of law, 

which inspired the international community to draft the Disabilities Convention. At 

its core, the Convention seeks to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy the 

same rights as everyone else and lead their lives as do other individuals, if given 

the same opportunities. As with the comprehensive network of U.S. Federal disability law, the Convention expresses the principles and goals of inclusion, respect 

for human dignity and individual autonomy, accessibility, and equal enjoyment of 

rights. Equality of opportunity and nondiscrimination are the primary principles 

permeating both the Convention and U.S. domestic disability law. They animate the 

important issues addressed by the Convention, including: political participation; access to justice; respect for home and the family; education; access to health care; 

employment; freedom of expression; and respect for individual autonomy including 

the freedom to make decisions about how a person wishes to live their life. By requiring equality of opportunity and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities, the Convention is reflective of the principles of U.S. disability law, drawn 

from such core legislation as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This 

principle of equality is of course enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments 

to the United States Constitution. 

Given that the Disabilities Convention is animated by the principles underlying 

U.S. disabilities law, and that it does not create new rights for disabled people, no 

new legislation would be required to implement the Convention if ratified with the 

recommended reservations, understandings, and declaration. Significantly, the 

United States would implement its obligations under existing law; the Convention 

would not give rise to any new individually enforceable rights. Therefore, you may 

ask why we should bother to ratify the Convention? Simply put, ratification of the 

Disabilities Convention will strengthen U.S. interests. It will promote tangible benefits for U.S. business and the approximately 50 million Americans with disabilities, 

including the 5.5 million American veterans with disabilities, who wish to live, 

work, serve, retire, study, travel, and reside abroad. By ratifying this Convention 

we will be putting ourselves in a position to assist our international partners to do 

as much as we have done domestically to enhance disability rights. 

35 

Prior to the adoption of the Convention, fewer than 50 countries around the world 

had adopted some form of nondiscrimination legislation to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. Ratification of the Convention by over 114 countries has since 

led to a dramatic increase in international interest in addressing the rights of persons with disabilities. However, overall standards of protection around the world 

typically remain subpar, as does enforcement of the protections that do exist. Such 

conditions limit opportunities abroad for Americans with disabilities. U.S citizens 

with disabilities frequently face barriers when they travel, conduct business, study, 

serve, reside, or retire overseas. With our extensive domestic experience in promoting equality and inclusion of persons with disabilities, the United States is 

uniquely positioned to help interested countries understand how to effectively comply with their obligations under the Convention. Indeed, provision of such technical 

assistance and knowledge sharing forms an important part of my work with the 

Department of State. However, the fact that we have yet to ratify the Disabilities 

Convention is frequently raised by foreign officials, and deflects from what should 

be center stage: how their own record of promoting disability rights could be improved. Though I take great pride in the U.S. record, it is frankly difficult to make 

best use of the ‘‘bully pulpit’’ to challenge disability rights violations on behalf of 

Americans with disabilities and others, when we have not ratified the Convention. 

Ratification would give the United States legitimacy and a platform from which to 

push for the adoption and implementation of the Convention’s standards in other 

countries. This in turn will likely result in concrete improvements (such as fewer 

architectural barriers and accessible air travel) in those nations that bring their national laws into compliance, thus affording greater protections, opportunities, and 

benefits to the millions of U.S. citizens with disabilities who currently face barriers 

abroad. 

Our failure to ratify has also undermined our advocacy for persons with disabilities in multilateral and regional fora, where ratification of the Convention has become a de-facto prerequisite for meaningful engagement in discussions on promotion 

of disability rights. For example, by ratifying we would be able to amplify our voice 

in the Disabilities Convention’s Conference of States Parties, to which the United 

States sends delegations of disability rights experts but currently only as an observer. This severely curtails the role that the United States can play in such meetings, particularly as more countries ratify. By joining the 114 other States Parties 

to the Convention, we could help shape the international disability agenda by taking 

a more prominent role in future Conferences, shaping and leading Conference meetings and panel discussions and more actively contributing to the international disability rights dialogue. We will be a leading force in the drive to both improve lives 

and increase understanding and cooperation among States, as well as to impact the 

development of international standards on accessibility. Disability diplomacy will 

have a positive effect on overall bilateral and regional diplomacy of the United 

States, by allowing us to leverage the shared value of disability rights to promote 

dialogue on other issues of importance to U.S. foreign policy. We have found that 

inclusion of disability rights in the work of the State Department amplifies our ability to achieve our broader foreign policy objectives. However, this work is unduly 

hampered by our not having a seat at the table as a State Party. 

Ratification would also be good for American business. By encouraging other countries to join and implement the Convention, we would also help level the playing 

field to the benefit of U.S. companies. It would enhance the competitive edge for our 

companies whose operations and hiring already meet accessibility requirements. 

Guiding and encouraging improved disability standards abroad would also afford 

U.S. businesses increased opportunities to export innovative products and technologies (such as electronic wheelchairs and other mobility devices, as well as accessible computers and electronics), thereby potentially stimulating job creation at 

home. As accessibility standards become more harmonized—a business objective 

that the United States can more credibly support if it becomes a State Party—the 

competitive edge increases for U.S. companies even further with the opening of 

markets. 

As I travel and meet disabled people from around the world, I am often reminded 

of how far we have come in the United States over the course of my lifetime, and 

how far so many countries have yet to go in ensuring that persons with disabilities 

are full and equal members of their societies. I also meet Americans with disabilities and their family members, who talk of the struggles they have faced abroad 

to live, work, and study with dignity and respect. Just as the ADA and related laws 

have become the gold standard for domestic disabilities legislation, U.S. ratification 

of the Disabilities Convention would represent a paradigm shift in the international 

treatment of persons with disabilities. The treaty is anchored in the overarching 

principles of inclusion, equality, and nondiscrimination that Americans already 

36 

value at home. Ratification would serve both to underscore the enduring U.S. commitment to disability rights and to enhance the ability of the United States to promote these rights overseas. U.S. ratification would better position the United States 

to exercise its leadership role to guide and encourage other countries to ratify and 

implement the Convention. Leading by example, in what we do and what we say, 

is a hallmark of America’s principles and policies. Any opportunity that we have to 

positively influence the practice of other countries in respecting the rights of persons 

with disabilities helps to create a world in which Americans with disabilities can 

promote American values by pursuing travel, work and study abroad unhindered by 

the barriers they currently face. Such opportunities can only be enhanced by our 

ratification of the Disabilities Convention. 

In sum, ratification is good for America and good for Americans. It will provide 

the United States with a critical platform from which to urge other countries to improve equality of individuals with disabilities, including Americans who travel or 

live abroad, and including children with disabilities, whose plight is particularly neglected in many parts of the world. The transformation which paved the way in the 

United States for children with disabilities to grow up with their families, go to 

school, and live as full participants in society has simply not taken place in much 

of the rest of the world. To promote the rights of individuals with disabilities overseas more effectively, the United States can use its ratification of the Convention 

as a vehicle to encourage, guide, pressure, and persuade other States Parties to implement better disability standards and provide greater disability rights protection 

in their countries, including to Americans. Ratification is a win-win, as protections 

in the United States would not need to be changed, and joining would not affect 

U.S. sovereignty. Ratification would open up opportunities for U.S. citizens, organizations, and businesses abroad, including our disabled youth, who rightly expect to 

be full participants in shaping our world’s future. 

Ratification of the Disabilities Convention would mark a momentous step toward 

the protection and advancement of the rights of persons with disabilities wherever 

they may live. It is a significant step for both its profound impact on our diplomatic 

leadership and for its tangible benefits to everyday Americans. Finally, in keeping 

with America’s longstanding bipartisan tradition of support for the rights of disabled 

people, ratification of the Disabilities Convention is the right and just thing to do. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Ms. Heumann. 

Eve Hill is the Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Department of Justice. 

Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF EVE HILL, SENIOR COUNSELOR TO THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. HILL. Good morning, Senator Durbin, Ranking Member 

Lugar, other members of the committee. 

I am very pleased to be here today. Thank you for holding this 

hearing on the United States ratification of the Disabilities Convention. 

I would ask that my full statement be submitted for the record. 

I am here to speak to the relationship between the Disabilities 

Convention and our American disability rights laws, which served, 

to a great extent, as the inspiration and model for the Convention. 

We in the United States are world leaders in disability rights. 

We have developed a panoply of American laws that protect the 

rights of people with disabilities to a greater extent than any other 

country in the globe. Where many other countries approach disability rights from an aspirational vantage, we match our legislation with effective enforcement mechanisms that have led to notable changes in our society. 

Curb cuts, ramps, parking spaces, American sign language interpreters, service animals—these are just a few of the 

groundbreaking changes that we have come to take for granted in 

37 

this country. But they are not available when Americans travel, 

study, work, or learn overseas. 

Federal laws address disability rights discrimination in a variety 

of areas. The Americans with Disabilities Act—ADA— addresses 

disability nondiscrimination obligations of State and local government entities, and of private entities, including stores, restaurants, 

and other providers of goods and services. The ADA also prohibits 

discrimination in employment. 

In addition, our Federal Government has been committed to disability rights in its own programs and services, as well as those it 

funds, for decades. We implement domestic disability rights laws 

through a variety of means, including education and guidance, supporting voluntary compliance, mediation, and litigation. These implementation efforts are driven by domestic law and practice and 

would not change with the ratification of the Disabilities Convention. Therefore, ratifying the Convention, as proposed, will not require new legislation or create new rights. 

The administration has proposed that the Senate consider a 

package of three Reservations, five Understandings, and one Declaration that will allow the United States to comply with the Convention without any changes to U.S. law. These are detailed in the 

ratification package, but I would like to speak to three of them 

today. 

First, the package includes a federalism reservation, similar to 

the federalism reservations that were taken with the ratification of 

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—ICCPR— 

and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination—CERD. The federalism reservation would limit the obligations of the United States under the Convention in areas covered by State and local government jurisdiction to measures appropriate to our Federal system. 

It would, thus, maintain the current balance and allocation of authority between the Federal Government and the 50 States. While 

we have a network of Federal disability laws, some treaty articles 

primarily implicate State laws, such as Article 12, which address 

guardianship, and Article 14, which addresses civil commitment. 

In most cases, State and local laws on these issues meet or exceed the requirements of the Convention. But in some issues governed by State law, such as legal capacity, some State and local 

protections may be less robust than the Convention. In these cases, 

the federalism reservation would preserve the existing balance of 

authority between the Federal Government and the States. 

I would also like to underscore the recommendation for a reservation on private conduct. This is similar to a reservation taken 

in treaties already ratified, such as the ICCPR and CERD. The private conduct reservation ensures that regulation of private parties 

under the Convention, including individuals, businesses, and nongovernmental organizations, is coextensive with such regulation 

under current domestic law. 

U.S. law extensively governs some areas of nongovernmental activity, such as disability discrimination by public accommodations. 

At the same, the U.S. Constitution and laws recognize a zone of 

private activity that is not governed by Federal or State government and, in some cases, expressly enjoys constitutional protection. 

38 

This important reservation, therefore, would limit U.S. treaty obligations regarding private conduct to be coextensive with such regulation under the Constitution and laws of the United States. 

Third, the proposed non-self-executing declaration would make it 

clear that the Convention could not be directly enforced by U.S. 

courts and would not give rise to individually enforceable rights. 

This is consistent with our practice under treaties on civil and political rights, racial discrimination, and torture. 

With this Declaration and the other Reservations and Understandings, the United States would be able to implement the Convention using the existing network of laws and Federal enforcement mechanisms that guarantee nondiscrimination to Americans 

with disabilities at home. As such, no new legislation would be required to ratify the Disabilities Convention. 

With the ratification of the Disabilities Convention, we will 

greatly enhance our ability to influence other countries to move toward adopting and implementing effective standards that are consistent with those that we have established at home. As a result, 

we hope that American veterans, business people, retirees, students, tourists, military, and others will be able to enjoy the same 

levels of accessibility and nondiscrimination protections overseas 

that they currently benefit from in the United States. 

Protection of disability rights laws has historically been grounded 

in bipartisan support, and the principles anchoring the Convention 

find clear expression in our own domestic law. We, therefore, urge 

this committee to give prompt and favorable consideration to the 

Disabilities Convention and that the full Senate give its advice and 

consent to ratification, subject to the proposed Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations. 

Thank you for inviting me today, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hill follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EVE HILL

Good morning, Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Lugar, and members of the 

Committee. Thank you for holding this hearing about the United States ratification 

of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Disabilities Convention). I am here today to speak to the relationship between the Disabilities Convention and our American disability-rights laws, which served, to a great extent, as 

the inspiration and model for the Disabilities Convention. 

We in the United States are world leaders in the effort to protect the rights of 

persons with disabilities. Our early initiatives to protect disability rights and the 

subsequent decades-long effort to enhance disability rights have resulted in a 

panoply of American laws that protect the rights of persons with disabilities to a 

greater extent than any other country on the globe. Where many other countries approach disability rights from an aspirational vantage, we match our legislation with 

concrete, effective enforcement mechanisms that have led to visible, notable changes 

in our society in our lifetimes. Curb cuts, ramps, accessible parking spaces, American Sign Language interpreters, service animals—these are just a few of the 

groundbreaking changes that have swept through our society thanks to our vigorous 

enforcement of disability-rights laws. 

While we in the United States too often take the tremendous advances in disability rights for granted, much work remains to be done and the Department of 

Justice and other Federal agencies are actively addressing discrimination on the 

basis of disability arising in a variety of arenas. These implementation efforts are 

driven by domestic law and practice and this approach would not change with the 

ratification of the Disabilities Convention. The Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA) addresses the disability nondiscrimination obligations of State and local governmental entities, including educational institutions, local government offices, 

39 

parks, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, and more, and by private entities, including stores, restaurants, recreational facilities, banks, and other providers of goods 

and services. The ADA also prohibits disability discrimination by employers with 15 

or more employees. Our disability-rights laws affect more than 6 million businesses 

and nonprofit agencies, 80,000 units of State and local government, and 54 million 

people with disabilities. In addition, our Federal government has been committed 

to disability rights in its own programs and services, as well as those it funds, for 

decades through the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Architectural Barriers Act, and 

many other Federal laws. 

Along with the Department of Justice, a panoply of other Federal agencies and 

entities are engaged in efforts to address discrimination on the basis of disability, 

including the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of 

Education, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Health and 

Human Services, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Communications 

Commission, the U.S. Access Board, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), each of which takes on significant responsibilities for the enforcement of our domestic disability-rights laws. 

The Disabilities Convention is firmly grounded in, and animated by, the principles 

underlying U.S. disabilities laws, including the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the ADA, 

and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Therefore, ratifying the Disabilities Convention will not require new legislation and will not create any new rights, 

so long as it moves forward with the recommended Reservations, Understandings, 

and Declaration (or RUDs). The Convention was finalized in December 2006 after 

several years of drafting and negotiations, during which a U.S. delegation played 

an active role and joined in the consensus adoption of the Convention. The influence 

of U.S. disability law on the Disabilities Convention is apparent in the way the Convention mirrors our robust and well-developed U.S. disability-rights legislation. The 

Disabilities Convention follows the core principles of U.S. disability-rights laws— 

equality of treatment and nondiscrimination, with an emphasis throughout the Convention of rights provided ‘‘on an equal basis with others.’’ It incorporates concepts 

central to U.S. disability-rights law, such as independent living, inclusive education, 

and reasonable accommodation, limited, as it is in U.S. law, by the qualification that 

an accommodation need not be made if it entails undue burden or expense. 

The administration has proposed that the Senate consider a package of three Reservations, five Understandings, and one Declaration that will allow the United 

States to be in full compliance with the Convention without any changes to U.S. 

law. These are detailed in the transmittal package, but I would like to speak to 

three of them today. 

First, the package includes a federalism reservation, similar to the federalism 

RUDs that were taken with the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil 

and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms 

of Racial Discrimination (CERD). This federalism reservation would limit the obligations of the United States in areas covered by State and local government jurisdiction to measures appropriate to the Federal system, maintaining the current allocation of authority between the Federal Government and the 50 States. While we have 

a significant network of Federal disability laws, some treaty articles would be primarily implemented under State laws, such as Article 12, which addresses guardianship, and Article 14, which addresses civil commitment. In most cases, State and 

local laws and practices meet or exceed the requirements of Federal law and thus 

the Convention. In instances governed primarily by State law where some State and 

local protections may be less robust than the Convention would require, such as 

regarding Article 12(4), which addresses safeguards in determinations of legal capacity, the federalism reservation would preserve the existing balance of authority 

between the Federal Government and the States. As we have observed, led by the 

advances at the Federal level, the dominant trend in State and local disabilityrights laws has been toward improvement and modernization. Thus, while the adoption of a federalism reservation will allow us to adopt the Disabilities Convention 

without any new legislation, it in no way will impede us from continuing forward 

progress in disability rights protection. 

I would also like to underscore the recommended reservation on private conduct. 

Similar to a reservation taken in treaties already ratified, such as the ICCPR and 

CERD, the private-conduct reservation is intended to ensure that regulation of the 

conduct of private parties under the Convention, including businesses and nongovernmental organizations, is coextensive with such regulation under existing 

domestic law. United States law extensively governs significant areas of nongovernmental activity, such as disability discrimination by public accommodations, transport carriers, communications networks, and employers. At the same time, the U.S. 

Constitution and laws recognize a zone of private activity that is not extensively 

40 

governed by Federal or State government, and, in some cases, expressly enjoys constitutional protection. This important reservation, therefore, would limit the treaty 

obligations undertaken by the United States respecting regulation of private conduct 

to be coextensive with such regulation under the Constitution and domestic laws of 

the United States. As the EEOC has separately confirmed to the committee, with 

the proposed RUD package, the United States will rely on existing law to fully comply with the Disabilities Convention. (See the attached letter from the EEOC.) 

Third, I also would like to address the proposed non-self-executing Declaration 

which would make it clear that the Convention could not be directly enforced by 

U.S. courts and would not give rise to individually enforceable rights. This is consistent with our treaty practice under the ICCPR, CERD, and the Convention 

Against Torture. With this Declaration and the other Reservations and Understandings, the United States would be able to implement its obligations under the 

Disabilities Convention using the existing network of laws and Federal enforcement 

machinery that afford protection and guarantees of nondiscrimination to persons 

with disabilities. As such, no new legislation would be required to ratify and implement the Convention. 

With the ratification of the Disabilities Convention, we will greatly enhance our 

capacity to influence other countries to move toward the vigorous, effective standards we have set at home. In turn, as other countries move forward, American veterans, business people, retirees, students, tourists, Active-Duty military, and others 

will be able to enjoy the same kinds of accessibility and nondiscrimination overseas 

that they currently enjoy in the United States. Thus, with the ratification of the 

Disabilities Convention, we will level the playing field for American businesses that 

are already complying with accessibility standards and provide new opportunities 

for the export of accessible technology. 

Protection of the rights of persons with disabilities has historically been grounded 

in bipartisan support and the principles anchoring the Convention find clear expression in our own domestic law. We therefore urge that this committee give prompt 

and favorable consideration to this Convention, and that the full Senate give its advice and consent to its ratification, subject to the administration’s proposed reservations, understandings, and declaration. 

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 

Washington, DC, September 19, 2011. 

Re Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

Hon. JOHN F. KERRY, 

Chairman, 

Hon. RICHARD G. LUGAR, 

Ranking Member, 

Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN KERRY AND RANKING MEMBER LUGAR: We are writing to support 

the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘‘Convention’’), subject to the reservations, understandings, and declaration (‘‘RUDs’’) described in the Executive Branch’s transmittal package. We appreciate this opportunity to express our views concerning the Convention. 

Created by the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (‘‘EEOC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) is a bipartisan body whose five members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination on the 

basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information. The EEOC plays a central role in enforcing the employment provisions of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), and the Rehabilitation Act, and has recently issued bi-partisan 

final regulations for the ADA Amendments Act of2008. As the United States Congress recognized in enacting the ADA, anti-discrimination protection on the basis of 

disability benefits society as a whole by integrating people with disabilities into the 

workplace, and we believe that it works well for both people with disabilities and 

employers. 

In requiring equal treatment for persons with disabilities, the Convention is anchored in the core concepts of U.S. civil rights law, which rejects stereotypes about 

the limitations of persons with disabilities and instead emphasizes the need for individualized assessment of a job applicant’s or worker’s qualifications and abilities. 

41 

The Convention, like the federal disability laws, including those enforced by the 

EEOC, promotes inclusion, respect for human dignity, and accessibility. 

The EEOC does not usually take positions on international Conventions. However, we believe that our assessment of the Convention and the RUDs may be of 

utility to the Committee on Foreign Affairs as it considers ratification. Ratification 

of the Convention will benefit persons with disabilities in the United States and 

worldwide by promoting the extension of the U.S.’s innovative and precedent-setting 

approach to accommodating persons with disabilities to foreign countries. It will 

help lead to greater protections and benefits for the millions of U.S. citizens with 

disabilities who travel, conduct business, study, or reside overseas, including American veterans. Additionally, ratification will benefit American businesses by leveling 

the playing field and encouraging countries around the world to harmonize their 

standards with the Convention (U.S. standards meet or exceed those of the Convention). Finally, ratification will provide the United States—an historic leader on disability rights issues—with an enhanced opportunity to share its interpretations of 

disability law and its technical expertise regarding accommodations for persons with 

disabilities with foreign governments. 

As the Executive Branch’s transmittal package has concluded, the United States 

will rely on existing law to comply with the Convention, including its employmentrelated provisions, as modified by the recommended RUDs. The Commission therefore has no intention to change the way it currently enforces the ADA, GINA, and 

the Rehabilitation Act. indeed, the Convention’s employment-related provisions and 

accompanying RUDs are squarely anchored in the principles of U.S. disability law, 

including the statutes that EEOC enforces. Similarly, the treaty transmittal package recommends a federalism reservation to make clear that ratification would not 

require changes in the Jaws of the fifty states, including state employment non-discrimination laws, and would impose no burden on state legislatures. 

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. We hope you find our assessment of the Convention and the RUDs to be useful as the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs considers ratification. 

Sincerely, 

JACQUELINE A. BERRIEN, 

Chair. 

STUART J. ISHIMARU, 

Commissioner. 

CONSTANCE S. BARKER, 

Commissioner. 

CHAI R. FELDBLUM, 

Commissioner. 

VICTORIA A. LIPNIC, 

Commissioner. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Ms. Hill. 

Before proceeding with a couple questions for each of you, I 

would like to again acknowledge two people and a third who has 

not been acknowledged. First, Tony Coelho, who was my colleague 

in the U.S. House of Representatives, a leader on disability issues 

from the start. And Tony, thank you for your leadership in bringing 

us here today. 

My former colleague, Steve Barlett from Texas, who joins us and 

I know has been a strong supporter of this effort. Thank you so 

much. 

And if you will give me some home State privilege here, I am so 

proud of Marca Bristo. She is my ‘‘shero’’ when it comes to disability issues in the State of Illinois and nationally. And Marca, 

thank you for all that you have done. You are just the very best. 

So let us address a couple issues head on. What we hear about 

when we open our e-mail on this subject is the question of children’s education. You have raised the point, Ms. Heumann, that 

with this, with the passage of this Convention, that we are opening 

up educational opportunities for disabled children in many places 

around the world where they are currently denied. 

42 

The critics of this Convention argue that we are limiting educational opportunities for American children, particularly when it 

comes to home schooling. So I would like to ask you and Ms. Hill 

to address that issue head on. 

Ms. HEUMANN. Well, I would like to state that we believe that 

there will be no changes to the ability of families to home school 

their children. What is very important to understand is, when I 

mentioned in my earlier statement that 90 percent of disabled children are not able to attend school overseas, we want the United 

States to be able to lead as an example of what we have done since 

the development and implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act when, in 1975, 1 million disabled children 

in this country were not attending school. 

Today, disabled children are in school. Parents have significant 

rights, and play a very important role in the education of their children. We want our laws to be able to be a beacon for parents and 

governments and civil society overseas so they can learn what it is 

that we have so successfully done, which is resulting in more students graduating from high school, and students with disabilities 

going to the universities. And now, many of them in the room today 

wishing to work and live and travel abroad. 

Ms. HILL. I would add that by its terms, the treaty does not proceed to undermine the rights of either individual parents or schools 

to change the requirements for home schooling. The Convention 

doesn’t change the ways in U.S. law governing parental authorities, 

which is a matter for the States, and that would be supported by 

the federalism reservation that I mentioned before that will not 

take this down to the State level. 

And where not regulated by State law, that is an individual decision, again limited by the private action reservation that I mentioned earlier as well. 

Senator DURBIN. So, Ms. Hill, let me follow through on another 

aspect of this, and the question is whether or not this new Convention would create any rights of enforcement or legal rights in courts 

for American citizens to enforce the provisions of this Convention. 

Could you address that? 

Ms. HILL. It does not. The non-self-executing declaration makes 

clear that the Convention’s requirements cannot be enforced in 

U.S. courts and do not provide individual rights of action. 

Senator DURBIN. Your testimony notes that the panoply of Federal agencies that play a role in enforcing already existing U.S. 

laws ensure access, inclusion, and opportunity include the Department of Justice, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

Our country’s existing legal framework for protecting those with 

disabilities is the best in the world and it has been very effective. 

By ratifying the treaty, would the United States be required to 

change its current legal framework for protecting the rights of 

those with disabilities? 

Ms. HILL. It will not. Again, the federalism reservation makes 

clear that the Federal level is responsible for implementation and 

that the limits of our current federalism system reduce the ability 

to carry those obligations through to any State level. 

43 

In addition, the limitations recognizing our zones of private conduct prevent further extension into those areas. 

Senator DURBIN. A witness on another panel asserts that the 

treaty will violate principles of American sovereignty and liberty. 

He asserts that if the United States ratifies this treaty, our ability 

to have absolute freedom of choice concerning public policy on the 

subject will be extinguished, in his words. 

Do you agree with this assertion that ratifying the treaty will 

cede U.S. sovereignty to an international body, or is there any aspect of this argument that you would find compelling? 

Ms. HILL. I do not agree at all with that assertion. The body created by the Convention is a committee that is nonbinding on state 

parties, that can make recommendations, that can make suggestions, and that can make its opinions known. But we have no obligation to follow those recommendations, and they are completely 

nonbinding on the United States. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. 

Senator Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. Let me ask either of the distinguished witnesses, 

how is the committee to deal with the fact that the Cabinet officers 

of many other departments of our Government might assert that 

they have an interest in this, quite apart from various other committees of the Senate? It is a wide-ranging treaty. We are having 

this in the Foreign Relations Committee. 

But as you advocate on behalf of advice and consent, are you 

dealing with other committees, with other branches of the Cabinet 

or the Government so that we understand that we are all on the 

same page? 

Ms. HEUMANN. Thank you very much for the question, Senator. 

The process that the Government undertook in developing this 

package was quite exhaustive and involved 16 other Federal agencies. It was a year and a half process. 

So all of the heads of these governmental agencies and their staff 

did a very thorough review of the provisions that are part of the 

Convention and how it pertains to U.S. law. So I believe that we 

have thoroughly done what you have requested us to do and that 

we believe that this committee is the appropriate committee for jurisdiction because of the fact that it is a treaty. 

Senator LUGAR. Let me ask, can you give us some idea of the 

members of the Convention—or other countries who have ratified 

the Convention? I am not asking for an entire encyclopedia. But 

are there countries in Europe, in Africa, in Latin America? Give us 

some idea of the range of how many countries already are involved 

in this situation that you are advocating that we join. 

Ms. HEUMANN. So, as you may be aware, there are, as of today, 

116 countries that have ratified, plus the U.N. The committee itself 

is made up of many very recognized, prestigious, significantly disabled individuals who in some cases have actually traveled and 

studied in the United States. 

As an example, there is a woman named Professor Degener, who 

is a woman who was born without arms when her mother took thalidomide, experienced various forms of discrimination in Germany 

and got her LLM here at the United States at UC-Berkeley. She 

44 

is a noted attorney and scholar, and she is an indication of the type 

of person. 

The people on the committee themselves are knowledgeable 

about disability. As I said, many have personal experience. They 

also understand the importance of good law and good jurisprudence. 

And what they are trying to do is to be able to help advance, 

working collaboratively with governments, many of whom, as we 

have said previously, want to be doing the right thing but have 

very limited knowledge and experience about how to develop good 

laws in areas of accessibility or education, have little information 

about how to implement those laws. 

The United States has great experience in this area. Our ability 

to be able to sit at the table and help advance this and the role 

that the committee can play we think is very advantageous. 

Senator LUGAR. So, in fact, the committee or sort of the governing instance in this case is giving advice to governments in 118 

countries about ways in which they might be more humane and 

more thoughtful to disabled people, but the committee is not able 

to enforce this. In other words, this is an advisory function, essentially—— 

Ms. HEUMANN. Exactly, Senator. 

Senator LUGAR [continuing]. Which is the sharing of experience. 

Is that your idea of the nature of the Convention, or is that too 

narrow a view? 

Ms. HEUMANN. No, the committee is an advisory body. The committee’s expertise is to, as I have been saying, help facilitate advancement. They will make recommendations, for example. We believe they are going to be discussing issues of accessibility with the 

committee in the future, in the near future. 

And therefore, again, the importance of our being able to play a 

role in helping to explain U.S. standards, how our standards have 

been developed, the effectiveness of implementation of those standards, the changes those standards have made in the United States 

and can make abroad we believe is very important. 

Senator LUGAR. Let me just ask hypothetically, has the committee been active in Russia, China, or—to take an instance in Africa—Kenya, or in Brazil? In other words, have they made recommendations, and have they been accepted? What has been the 

progress in any of these countries? 

Ms. HEUMANN. Sir, as you know, the Convention itself is relatively new. The committee has thus far received three reports. 

The way the process goes is once a country has ratified, it will submit a report 2 years later. 

China actually, I think, has now submitted its report, and it is 

going to be under review in the fall. And I think this is a report 

that we would like to also be paying close attention to, and our 

ability to be a member of the body—in ratifying, it will enable us 

to seek to have a position on this committee in the future. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, when you receive this report from China, 

it will—I suppose the Chinese will outline ways they are helpful to 

handicapped persons is that thing. Then the committee takes a 

look at this report and says how about this or this or this? Is this 

the way the conversation is likely to work? 

45 

Ms. HEUMANN. The committee will gather. It will review the report. It will put forth a report on recommendations that it has for 

the governments. One interesting aspect that is going on right now 

also is that civil societies in many of these countries are also, as 

you know very well, Senator Lugar, developing something called 

shadow reports. 

I think what is particularly important about shadow reports, 

which are being developed by civil societies around the world, is 

that in many countries, the voices of disabled people have not really been heard. They have not been organized. They have not been 

knowledgeable about how, in fact, to submit such a report. 

So I think we are seeing the committee playing a critical role in 

articulating what their concerns will be, recommendations that 

they will make, and also the voices of civil society that are coming 

behind the government’s report to say what they think about the 

report. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, thank you. 

Hopefully, maybe over the Internet, some of these shadow reports might be found, and there could be some worldwide communication of that. 

Ms. HEUMANN. I am sure that the shadow reports are available, 

Mr. Senator. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you. 

Senator DURBIN. Senator Menendez. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The transmittal package from the administration states that no 

new legislation would be required to ratify and implement the Convention. There are about 50 articles in the Convention that cover 

a broad range of topics, including health, education, work and employment, and so on. Is the administration confident that there are 

not any gaps in compliance if the United States becomes a party 

to the Convention? 

Ms. HILL. We are confident that to the extent that there are any 

gaps, they are addressed by the Reservations, Understandings, and 

Declaration. So, for example, if State law, which is a traditional 

area left to the States, were in some case less than what the Convention would require, the federalism reservation would make clear 

that the Convention’s requirements did not extend to the State law. 

This may lead some to advocate with States to say you may want 

to consider moving your State law in this direction, but there 

would be no binding effect on that. Again, the non-self-executing 

declaration would make clear that in the U.N. Disabilities Convention, even if someone believed that it didn’t—that our compliance 

did not meet the standard set out by the Convention, there would 

be no binding authority to tell us to tell us to change it. It would 

simply be recommendations. 

And we, of course, are always open to learning new ideas from 

other countries. So there is no way. There is no enforcement way 

for the Convention to force us to change new laws. We are confident that after substantial review by a number of Federal agencies that any gaps in our compliance with the U.N. Disabilities 

Convention would be protected by the RUDs and that any gaps are 

very, very minor and that we are by far the leaders in this ability 

to comply with the Convention. 

46 

Senator MENENDEZ. Fine. I think Senator McCain said in his 

statement that there would be no financial obligations upon ratification of the Convention. Is that State’s understanding as well? 

Ms. HEUMANN. Yes, it is, Mr. Senator. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And, with some minor exceptions as you 

have noted, it would seem to me that we are largely already in the 

lead here. So, it seems to me that, well, one other question before 

I make that statement. 

Is there any ceding of sovereignty here that will ultimately take 

away some of our sovereign rights in this field? 

Ms. HEUMANN. No, Mr. Senator. 

Ms. HILL. There is not. The articles that set up the commission 

for the Convention do not give the commission any authority to 

bind or to otherwise take any pieces of sovereignty away from the 

states parties. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And it is my understanding that you responded to the chairman in terms of the best interests of how parents would care for disabled children. They would still have their 

absolute rights under that? 

Ms. HILL. They still have the rights that are consistent with current State and Federal law. 

Senator MENENDEZ. So it seems to me that as a leader in the 

world already, it would not only be prudent, but desirable for the 

United States to join and help others follow our lead so that a citizen anywhere in the world would ultimately be able to enjoy the 

benefits of these rights. 

Ms. HEUMANN. Yes. And I would also like to say, you know, we 

are living in a globalized world, and the changes that have been 

made in the United States over the last four decades have afforded 

disabled people in this country tremendous opportunities. And as 

such, many of those individuals are now needing to be able to be 

competitive on the world market. 

Those individuals with more significant disabilities who have 

studied at universities, have studied in the appropriate fields for 

international work, in many cases are being thwarted by barriers 

which exist overseas. You will hear from John Lancaster that in 

spite of many of these barriers, people are, nonetheless, going overseas. 

But they do want to be able to feel when they are traveling that 

they can be able to say that their country has ratified this treaty. 

That they can freely speak about the great legislation that we have 

in the United States, the collaborative approaches that government 

and civil society have been able to use over the years. 

The reality is those of you on the dais today and in committees 

across this Congress are the ones who have promulgated meaningful legislation that has resulted in great changes for millions of 

Americans living here and wishing to work, study, and travel 

abroad. So I think we should take the great work that we have 

done and, with great pride, use it as an active diplomacy to be able 

to work with governments and civil society to help them make the 

advancements that 1 billion people need. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I think you have summarized it so well that 

I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Thank you. 

47 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Menendez. 

Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you. 

Ms. Hill, I am interested, I want to focus on your testimony regarding the non-self-executing declaration. How far back do we 

reach to find the inception of that in treaties? When was the first 

time that was used? Do you know? 

Ms. HILL. I believe it was in the International Convention on the 

Civil and Political Rights. 

Senator RISCH. What year would that have been, ballpark? 

Ms. HILL. And I am not sure the year of that. Sixty-six. 

[The information requested to the question above follows:] 

After consultation with the Department of State, attached is a list that surveys 

recent examples of the use of declarations in Senate resolutions of advice and consent regarding the non-self-executing status of treaties. The attached list is not intended to be exhaustive, but to provide a useful survey of recent practices. 

[EDITOR’S NOTE.—The list mentioned above can be found in Annex II.] 

Senator RISCH. Then the other question I would have is I think 

all of us are familiar with the frustration, I guess, Congress has 

had over the centuries trying to restrict the jurisdiction of another 

branch of Government. I am familiar with some of the litigation in 

that regard, but I am not familiar with any litigation regarding the 

non-self-executing declaration. Has that issue been litigated up 

through the highest court? 

Ms. HILL. No, not through the highest court. It was brought to 

one court. The court found that the non-self-executing declaration 

was effective and did not affect the particular issue in the case. 

Senator RISCH. Was that a circuit court or a district court, or do 

you know? 

Ms. HILL. I believe that it was a district court, but I can get back 

to you with the details. 

Senator RISCH. Could you, please? Yes, I would like the citation 

on that. 

[The information requested to the question above follows:] 

Id. In the leading case of Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 524 U.S. 692 (2004), the Supreme Court treated a non-self-executing declaration as dispositive. The Court noted 

that ‘‘The United States ratified the [International Covenant on Civil and Political 

Rights] on the express understanding that it was not self-executing and so did not 

itself create obligations enforceable in the federal courts.’’ The Court accordingly 

held without any further analysis that the ICCPR is not directly enforceable. 

Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DURBIN. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And let me thank all of our witnesses and those who have participated. Also I am glad you acknowledged our former colleagues, 

Steve Bartlett and Tony Coelho. 

When I came to Congress in 1987, it was Tony Coelho who I 

think sensitized those of us in Congress to the needs of people with 

disabilities, and I remember one person who he had an incredible 

impact on, who was my closest friend, and that is Congressman 

Steny Hoyer, who took the leadership in the House in the passage 

of the ADA law. So I just really want to thank Tony for his longstanding work here in moving this country forward. 

48 

We are proud of the progress that we have made in the United 

States, and I think the points that have been brought up here 

about how we can impact what is happening around the world are 

important. I remember Steny Hoyer the year after the ADA law 

passed, in his capacity as chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, took the cause of people with disability internationally. 

And in 1991, through Steny Hoyer’s leadership, through the leadership of the United States, we were able to get the OSCE to pass 

a declaration on the rights of people with disabilities, known as the 

Moscow document, which is somewhat aspirational since it points 

out the needs for us to respect the rights of people with disabilities 

in the workplace, in the Government, accessibility, et cetera. 

So I just really want to follow up in one respect to the comments 

that both our witnesses have made, and that is this, that you continuously state that the United States laws are the strongest and 

that whereas other countries have expressed their support for the 

rights of people with disabilities, they have not followed up with 

the type of legislative action and support that would provide effective changes. 

You are correct. Americans have the rights here in America, but 

they do travel, and we do first have a responsibility for international leadership, but also to protect our citizens when they travel to other countries. By the ratification of this Convention, can you 

just perhaps expand a little bit further as to what position the 

United States would be in to point to the laws that we have passed 

and how they have effectively advanced the rights of people with 

disability? 

I remember very clearly when these bills were moving through 

Congress, we heard all the horror stories that it couldn’t be done, 

et cetera, et cetera. And now, as we have seen, we have been able 

to balance the pragmatic concerns with the needs of our people 

with disabilities. 

And so, what position are we in if we ratify the Convention to 

try to get the international community to take a look at our laws 

and use them as an international model since we have advanced 

the rights of people with disability in a lot more effective way than 

other countries around the world? 

Ms. HEUMANN. Senator, ratification will give us the ability to 

participate in various international fora where there is a focus on 

the Convention. This will enable us to help develop the agendas for 

discussion, to participate in those discussions, and then to participate in working with other governments to help them get a better 

understanding of how our laws have been developed. 

Let me give you kind of a very basic example that many of us 

who use wheelchairs experience when we are trying to travel overseas. We have a law called the Air Carriers Access Act, which is 

at this point I think about 20-some years old. It provides great protections for disabled people in the United States, and it is one that 

we, since it was passed so many years ago, many people just take 

it for granted. 

It means simple things like you have to be able to take your 

wheelchair to the door of the plane. And when you arrive, they 

have to bring your wheelchair to the door of the plane. If you need 

49 

assistance on and off the plane, there should be something like an 

aisle chair that should have seatbelts so that you don’t fall. 

I was traveling in a country once where I needed to bring my 

wheelchair to the door of the plane. I have a specially designed 

seat. And the staffer said to me, ‘‘I have worked in this airport for 

18 years. I have never allowed someone to bring their wheelchair 

to the door, and you are not going to be the first person to allow 

that to happen.’’ 

That type of an example of being able to work with their governments and allow their governments to understand the law that we 

have promulgated, how it has been implemented, how it has been 

appropriately enforced, and what it means for disabled people is 

very important. 

One of the colleagues here today from the State Department and 

I have recently been traveling, and we continuously have difficulty 

in getting our simple pieces of equipment because in other countries people accept when someone says, ‘‘We will not bring it to 

you,’’ that they just won’t. And they get off the plane, sitting on 

aisle chairs without seatbelts, in chairs that don’t fit them, and 

putting themselves at great risk. 

This is kind of a very simple, basic issue, and I believe that what 

we have been able to do over these many decades is go from simple 

issues to very complex issues like education of disabled children, 

and promulgation of regulations. 

Our expertise working with governments and civil society in a 

meaningful way will help to improve laws overseas because we can 

demonstrate with data. We have done great funding in this Congress on data. Our data can show the progress that has resulted 

because of our good legislation. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Hill, do you want to add anything? 

Ms. HILL. If I could go, return to the question about the courts 

upholding the RUDs non-self-executing? There is a Supreme Court 

case that did address that issue and found the non-self-executing 

declaration to be dispositive. So that has gone up through the First 

Circuit to the Supreme Court and has been found to be dispositive. 

Senator CARDIN. And I assume you will get that cite to Senator 

Risch. 

Ms. HILL. And I will. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent 

that a letter sent to the committee by the Jewish Disability Network representing the views of the Anti-Defamation League, the 

Association of Jewish Families and Children’s Agencies, B’nai 

B’rith International, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago. I wanted to make sure I got that 

one into the record for the chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

The National Council of Jewish Women, the Jewish Federation 

of North America, the Union of Reformed Judaism, United Synagogues of Conservative Judaism, and UJA Federation of New York, 

all in support of ratification, that that be made part of our record. 

Senator DURBIN. Without objection. 

[EDITOR’S NOTE.—The letter mentioned above can be found in 

Annex II.] 

50 

Senator DURBIN. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Heumann, from the cost standpoint, could you explain a little bit about the financial obligations associated with ratifying the 

Convention? How is the committee funded? How do those things 

work out? 

Ms. HEUMANN. The committee is funded through the general 

funds of the United Nations. We are not given a separate—the 

United States is not paying any additional funding for the committee. 

Senator BARRASSO. So along those lines, would the United States 

be required under this Convention to provide monetary support for, 

say, disability programs to other nations that may not be able to 

afford them? 

Ms. HEUMANN. No. 

Senator BARRASSO. OK. I want to ask you about some private 

conduct. This is a question I think Senator Durbin got to. Would 

the Convention impose obligations on individuals, private organizations, or religious groups within the United States? 

Ms. HILL. Not beyond the extent to which they are regulated 

today. 

Senator BARRASSO. Ms. Hill, can you describe the amendment 

process under the Convention? Can the United States be bound by 

amendments that we don’t agree with? 

Ms. HILL. Do you have a better handle on that? 

Ms. HEUMANN. The answer is ‘‘No.’’ 

Senator BARRASSO. OK. And Ms. Hill, can the United States be 

sued before an international tribunal or court under the Convention? 

Ms. HILL. There is no international tribunal set up to enforce 

this Convention. 

Senator BARRASSO. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DURBIN. Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to each of you for coming and joining us today. 

I wanted to start with you, Ms. Hill. I appreciate the references 

you made to federalism in the reservations that the United States 

has advocated. Can you talk to me for a minute about how those 

reservations are upheld, how they remain intact, whether or to 

what extent they are honored, and what impact they would have 

on a court’s interpretation of the treaty were it to be ratified? 

Ms. HILL. I don’t know of courts that have rejected RUDs, and 

the most important one is the self-executing declaration, and that 

has been upheld. So I don’t know of any courts that have rejected 

a RUD and then expanded their jurisdiction to be able to enforce 

anything contrary to a RUD that was adopted through this process. 

Senator LEE. Harold Koh has been at times critical of what he 

sometimes describes as Swiss cheese ratification, where he says— 

there was a 2003 Stanford Law Review article in which he wrote 

that ratification of multilateral treaties with so many reservations, 

understandings, and declarations, that these conditions substantially limit the U.S. acceptance of these treaties. 

51 

Do you share that concern that we sometimes tread into that 

zone and create a Swiss cheese ratification? And if so, are we approaching that here? 

Ms. HILL. I don’t believe so. We have recommended three Reservations, five Understandings, and one Declaration, which I don’t 

think in any way make this a Swiss cheese approach to the treaty. 

That is simply adopting the treaty and identifying the ways that 

it applies to our system. 

Senator LEE. Some have expressed concerns about Article 7 of 

the Convention, which I am told is patterned somewhat or contains 

language patterned somewhat after corresponding language in the 

U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. And this language, according to some of the critics, focuses on the best interests of the 

child standard. 

That is a familiar standard to us in some respects here in the 

United States in that that is a standard that is frequently employed by courts in making custody determinations in the context 

of a divorce. And in those rare cases involving the invalidation of 

parental rights with an abusive home environment, it is sometimes 

a standard that is used to decide where the child goes then if the 

parental rights are dissolved. 

But the critics would say that Article 7 of this Convention would 

inject the best interests of the child standard into other contexts, 

contexts in which parents currently enjoy certain rights, certain— 

the right to make certain decisions unencumbered by the decisions 

of the State. Can you comment on those? 

Ms. HILL. To the extent that that is the concern, that this would 

reach into the private home and the private decisions of parents 

about how to raise their children, that would be protected by the 

private action reservation. So that would keep, under the U.N. Disability Convention, anything that might be read to interfere with 

the private decisions of parents about their children would be protected. That private action would be protected by the private action 

reservation. 

Senator LEE. Meaning that because no one has a private right 

of action to enforce the terms of the Convention itself, that that 

would take care of this concern? 

Ms. HILL. No, no. This would be that we interpret, we interpret 

the application of the U.N. Disabilities Convention to respect the 

distinctions between what we as a Federal Government can regulate in terms of private action and what we cannot. And so, in 

these cases, the home and family determinations of parents, unless 

they reach a level of State law, are within private action and would 

not be regulated under the Convention. 

If they do reach a level of State law, and State law has most jurisdiction over things like neglect and so forth, then you would get 

into the federalism reservation that would also say that State law 

would continue to apply in the way that it currently does. 

Senator LEE. OK. So the reservation, as you understand it, particularly the federalism reservation makes sure that we don’t have 

a creep of Federal law into areas currently covered by State 

law—— 

Ms. HILL. Correct. 

52 

Senator LEE [continuing]. Which would include most custody determinations, most determinations regarding eligibility for educational programs, and things like that. Is that correct? 

Ms. HILL. Correct. Things that are beyond the Congress’ power 

to regulate now. 

Senator LEE. OK. There are some critics who have pointed to 

provisions of the IDEA and pointed out that parents have certain 

rights under the IDEA and that that aspect of Federal law would 

be modified by Article 7 of this Convention. Can you comment on 

that? 

Ms. HILL. Those are interpreted through our nondiscrimination 

Understanding, that those would be read as nondiscrimination obligations rather than as any affirmative obligations. Those would not 

inhibit parents’ ability to both participate in the IEP process and 

make their positions known, or to make their decisions to reject 

special education services that were being proposed by a school. 

Senator LEE. So you would agree that without those reservations, 

that might be a change to existing law? It might be a change to 

the existing law under the IDEA, but with the reservations, there 

is not a change. 

Ms. HILL. I actually don’t believe. I was accepting for the purposes of the argument that that would be the case. 

Senator LEE. OK. 

Ms. HILL. But I actually don’t believe that this changes the basic 

approach of the IDEA, which already includes the best interests of 

the child and already includes the participation of the child, as appropriate, in the decisionmaking. 

Senator LEE. OK. There is a Professor Geraldine Van Bueren, 

who apparently assisted in the drafting of the corresponding language in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, who, in reference to the corresponding language in the Convention on the 

Rights of the Child, said that the best interests standard provides 

decision and policymakers with the authority to substitute their 

own decision for either the child’s or the parents’, providing it is 

based on considerations of the best interests of the child. 

Do you disagree with Professor Van Bueren? 

Ms. HILL. She is talking about the Convention on the Rights of 

Children, and I am not an expert in the Convention on the Rights 

of Children. But the difference—at least one of the differences between that Convention and this one—is that this one has a nondiscrimination provision. So this does not add laws, add benefits, 

add requirements regarding individuals with disabilities that are 

not equal and the same as those added for children without disabilities. 

So if we had adopted the CRC, then those rights would carry on 

to children with disabilities. But not having pursued that, the 

rights provided to children with disabilities under this would be 

nondiscrimination rights. 

Senator LEE. So the different context in which similar language 

was used in the CRC gives it a different application there than it 

would have here since this is in the context of nondiscrimination? 

Ms. HILL. Correct. And then reemphasized by our interpretation 

of all economic, social, and cultural rights as nondiscrimination 

rights. 

53 

Senator LEE. OK. Thank you. 

I see my time has expired. 

Senator DURBIN. Senator Risch, did you want to make a point before I recognize Senator Shaheen? 

Senator RISCH. Please. Actually, I wanted to ask a question. 

Ms. Hill, since 1966, can you tell me how many treaties that we 

have had where the language, the non-self-executing declaration 

has been included in the treaty? 

Ms. HILL. I am not sure I know all of them. The ones that I referred to in my testimony, including the Convention on Civil and 

Political Rights and the Convention against Torture, I believe 

are—— 

Senator RISCH. Do you think there is more than two? Is it possible there is more? 

Ms. HILL. Three. I think the racial discrimination one as well included it. 

Senator RISCH. And is the language precisely the same, close to 

the same in each of these treaties? Is it different? Is it modified for 

each treaty, or is there boilerplate language for this particular provision? 

Ms. HILL. It is certainly based on the same concept. I can’t swear 

that, line by line, every word is the same. 

Ms. HEUMANN. We can get back to you with that. 

Senator RISCH. Would you, please? And also if you could check 

and see if there are other treaties than these three that have such 

a provision, I would sincerely appreciate it. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DURBIN. Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all very much to the panelists for being here. I 

apologize for missing your testimony. 

Ms. Heumann, I think I am pronouncing your name correctly? 

Ms. HEUMANN. Yes. 

Senator SHAHEEN. In your testimony, you stated that ratification 

of the treaty would give the United States legitimacy and a platform from which to push for the adoption among other countries 

internationally. Can you talk a little bit about how foreign countries and foreign governments currently perceive the fact that the 

United States has not ratified the treaty and what our failure to 

ratify the Convention has meant on our leadership on issues 

around disabilities throughout the world? 

Ms. HEUMANN. Thank you very much for the question. 

I think people are perplexed, quite frankly, because this area is 

one that the United States has led on for so many decades. And 

so, there is a real question from disabled people, why is the United 

States abandoning us? That word may not be used, but it is really 

something that people are concerned about. 

We have got all this expertise. Why are we not freely sharing it? 

Why are we not being able to participate at relevant tables? 

I think governments are also questioning why we are not more 

actively participating. We go to various fora, but because we 

haven’t ratified, we are not able to participate. 

So last year, for example, we were going to be asked to speak on 

a plenary panel in the U.N. when the Conference of State Parties 

54 

convenes, which is the body that gets together every year to discuss 

the Convention. But we were not allowed to participate because we 

hadn’t ratified. 

It meant that, in my view, the country that has got the most experience in really grappling with critical issues on inclusion of disabled children in education, work in universities, teacher training, 

we were not allowed to participate. These are all very missed opportunities from a foreign diplomacy perspective. 

It is something that the President and the Secretary obviously 

feel strongly about that we need to ratify so that we, in fact, can 

freely be able to participate and advance the tremendous work that 

we have done in the United States in an incredibly bipartisan way. 

And I think this is something that is also very important. What 

I am hearing from colleagues of mine who are working in the field 

around the world is what they are really struck by is how governments are so sincerely interested in making changes. 

I think the adoption of the treaty in 2006 was an amazing effort 

which brought hundreds of disabled people from around the world 

from some of the poorest countries, who sat side-by-side with members of their foreign delegations and for the first time were really 

able to explain the kinds of problems that people are facing. 

The United States played an important role in those discussions. 

Concepts like reasonable accommodation, which are in the Convention, are because of the great efforts of the team of U.S. people 

who participated. 

So our standing in the world, I think, will be enhanced. We will 

more freely be able to demonstrate the great work that we have 

done. There will be ranges of opportunities where we can discuss 

this. And most importantly, at the diplomatic level, I think we will 

really be elevating our knowledge and expertise to be able to advance and elevate the rights of disabled people. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I don’t know which of you would like to address this question. But as you all know, there is widespread support for the Convention from a variety of stakeholders. Over 165 

disability organizations and 21 major veterans and military service 

organizations have supported ratification. 

Can you all talk about why this support has been so widespread? 

Ms. HEUMANN. I think there are a number of reasons. One of 

those is that our laws have enabled disabled people in the United 

States to achieve a level of success, certainly not yet for all disabled people, so that people are aspiring to do more. They are aspiring to participate in the global scene. 

Disabled veterans who wish to get jobs overseas or just to vacation overseas or veterans who have a family member with a disability or civilians, they are being thwarted. We see that with Foreign Service officers who cannot take a position overseas unless 

they are separated from their families because they don’t have the 

same services in those countries as we have here. 

I think people see it as the right thing to do. I think many people 

in the United States understand the importance of being able to 

participate in the global market. We see it as an opportunity from 

a business perspective to be able to sell products that we have designed in the United States—wheelchairs, information technology, 

et cetera. These are all very critical things. 

55 

And I think, quite frankly, you know, you look at the religious 

community. We have met with many religious organizations that 

are doing work in developing countries that are very much understanding the benefit of taking what we have been learning here 

and are taking it overseas to work in very small rural communities 

to be able to help advance the rights of families and children with 

disabilities. 

Senator SHAHEEN. And can you elaborate a little bit on the economic benefits? Because you alluded to that just now and in your 

testimony, but can you talk about why there would be real economic benefits to us as a country in ratifying the treaty? 

Ms. HEUMANN. So I think there are a number of ways to look at 

economic benefit. From the U.S. perspective, economic benefit of 

our being able to take products that we have developed and look 

at markets overseas to sell those products I think is very important. We also see a growing number of disabled people, as I have 

been saying, who wish to work overseas. So it is an economic impact for them. 

We know that disabled people around the world are the poorest 

of the poor. We know that education is one of the critical reasons 

why people are poor, whether they are disabled or not. We see that 

as women become educated, and we should, therefore, believe that 

if disabled girls are part of that, they will also be able to become 

meaningful players in the economic market. 

Families that can earn their own money are less dependent on 

other kinds of supports. Many of the countries that we all work in, 

in fact, disabled people have no economic supports they can get 

from government. So they are a drag on their families. Family 

members who don’t have disabilities cannot go to work because 

they are staying home taking care of people. 

There are so many economic reasons from the U.S. perspective 

to not only advance from our perspective in the United States, but 

to help other countries learn what we have done to be able to help 

people with disabilities get the tools they need to be able to work. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DURBIN. Senator DeMint? 

Senator DEMINT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank our witnesses as well. Respecting and recognizing the rights of disabled persons is an important issue, and the 

goals of this Convention are admirable. 

But I have concerns about how we achieve those goals. The idea 

that the United States must join the U.N. Convention to give ourselves more legitimacy in the world given our extensive work, 

which has been pointed out by our witnesses, to protect the rights 

of disabled is demeaning to those who have succeeded in working 

for the high standards we have in the United States. 

Joining this Convention will not enhance the rights of the disabled in the United States. There is also little evidence to suggest 

that joining the Convention will coerce other countries to improve 

their protection of disabled people. We can see this through examples of other U.N. Conventions. 

China routinely flouts the Law of the Sea Convention in South 

China Sea. Adherence to the Convention on the Elimination of All 

56 

Forms of Discrimination against Women, such as Saudi Arabia, 

shows slow improvement in guaranteeing basic rights for women. 

Furthermore, the Department of State, USAID, and the Department of Justice are already resources for countries that are seeking 

help in improving the treatment of disabled people. 

More worrisome, convention committees have a track record of 

overstepping their authority and advocating positions that are contrary to American laws and values. As one of our witnesses will 

point out in his testimony, a 2008 report from the Committee on 

the Elimination of Racial Discrimination called on the United 

States to, among other things, place a moratorium on the death 

penalty, restore voting rights to convicted felons, and ensure that 

enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay have the right to judicial 

review. 

The committee that oversees the Convention on the Elimination 

of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, of which the United 

States is not a party, has a long record of promoting abortion, the 

decriminalization of prostitution, gender quotas, and reducing parental authority. These committees have acted far beyond their authority in their recommendations and by doing so promote polarization and mistrust among the member nations. 

Portions of this Convention also concern reproductive health and 

the rights of children. These issues should be addressed by individual U.S. States and local governments. We should never cede 

the authority of these matters to an international organization. 

Our Founding Fathers cautioned us long ago against foreign entanglements. Many of us know President Washington’s warning in 

his farewell address where he stated, ‘‘The great rule of conduct for 

us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So 

far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled 

with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.’’ 

In Thomas Jefferson’s inaugural speech, the author of the Declaration of Independence, stated, ‘‘Peace, commerce, and honest 

friendships with all nations, entangling alliances with none.’’ 

I believe that we have distanced ourselves from the words of our 

Founders. Despite the best intentions of the international agreements we find ourselves considering, these warnings should resonate today as loud as they did at the genesis of our country. 

Before I get to my questions, I have some concerns with the timing and process for vetting this treaty that I would like to address. 

This Convention was submitted to the Senate less than 2 months 

ago, and Senators were only informed of the chairman’s desire for 

consideration before the July 4th recess. 

Senators on this committee have already been asked to consider 

and debate a highly complicated and controversial treaty, the Convention on the Law of the Sea, this summer, and we are continuing 

to monitor and deal with several issues of urgency in the Middle 

East and elsewhere. 

I appreciate the chairman’s willingness to hold this hearing and 

invite witnesses representing a variety of opinions. But I caution 

against expediting this Convention and ask that Senators are allowed to have ample time and opportunity to review and discuss 

its merits. 

57 

I am going to read directly from Article 25, Section 8 of the Convention. It says that, ‘‘State parties shall provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality, and other standards of free 

or affordable health care and programs as provided to other persons, including the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based public health.’’ 

I understand that when the U.N. General Assembly adopted final 

text in 2006, the United States issued a statement stating that reproductive health did not include abortion. However, this administration has a different understanding of reproductive health than 

the previous one. Secretary Clinton stated in 2009 that we think 

or, ‘‘We happen to think that family planning is an important part 

of women’s health, and reproductive health includes access to abortion that I believe should be safe, legal, and rare.’’ 

I would just like to ask the panel how does the United States define reproductive health in this Convention, and does this administration stand by Secretary Clinton’s statement about reproductive 

health when it comes to this Convention? 

I would also just like you to reflect on why it is that the United 

States, who has really set the gold standard for how we deal with 

disabilities, why should we submit ourselves to other nations who 

have been far less effective and committed to this cause? 

We can certainly be the model. We can be the example. We can 

be the light on the hill for the whole world. We can provide resources. But why should we present ourselves to the study of those 

who would scrutinize our work under criteria that, clearly, they 

overstep on all of the areas we have been involved with the United 

Nations? Why should we submit instead of lead? 

So I will go back to my first question of reproductive health and 

then ask any just comments you might have on why the United 

States should submit rather than lead. 

Ms. HILL. Sure. Thank you for the question. 

First of all, the Convention doesn’t discuss abortion. 

And to the extent that it discusses health services and reproductive health services, those are nondiscrimination requirements. So 

they neither obligate the United States to increase abortion availability or other reproductive health service availability. 

Senator DEMINT. So you disagree with Secretary Clinton that reproductive health includes abortion? 

Ms. HILL. No, I don’t disagree with that, with the interpretation 

that reproductive health could include abortion. But the reproductive health provisions of this Convention are nondiscrimination requirements. 

So if reproductive health services are provided to people in general, all the reproductive health provisions say is that they also 

have to be made available to people with disabilities. They do not 

create new reproductive health obligations. They do not create new 

obligations to fund abortion or anything else that might be considered reproductive health. 

Senator DEMINT. And do you think that our country submitting 

ourselves to the scrutiny and criticism of this international body 

made up of countries who are far less effective as we are is going 

to improve our treatment of the disabled in this country? 

58 

Ms. HILL. Quite simply, we don’t submit ourselves to an international body. The international body has a limited set of powers 

laid out in the articles that address those powers. And they do not 

have the power to bind us. We do not have any obligation to follow 

their recommendations. 

We report to them periodically and not that frequently, and they 

may give suggestions and recommendations, which we do not have 

to adopt in any way. 

Senator DEMINT. And neither does any other country. 

Ms. HILL. And neither does any other country. And so, for us, the 

goal of our participation is to be able to influence by being at the 

table, other countries incorporation of what we believe are the gold 

standards that we have adopted so that our people can be consistently accommodated and consistently guaranteed access overseas. 

Ms. HEUMANN. And Senator, I would like to also say that what 

we have seen in this country in relationship to the advancement 

of the rights of disabled people being done in a consistent, nonpartisan way is what we are seeing around the world. So I think 

in some way this treaty may be different than some other treaties. 

Because, as I have stated throughout my discussions today, we 

are seeing governments with various political persuasions, who frequently we have difficulty speaking with, being willing to talk with 

the State Department and others, giving us opportunities because 

we are discussing an issue that affects so many people, regardless 

of their economic background and regardless of their political background. 

So we have seen this in numerous countries. 

Senator DEMINT. Well, I agree. I agree. Clearly, good things are 

happening. The United States has made tremendous amounts of 

progress. The world is copying us in a lot of respects. As you said, 

the world is talking to our State Department. 

There is no other table that we need a seat at than the one we 

already have, which is a seat at the top where people come for the 

gold standard. And it seems like you are basically contradicting 

yourself, saying that we are making huge progress here and around 

the world. We are interacting with the rest of the world. They are 

copying our gold standard, but somehow we need to submit ourselves to this. 

And we are submitting to really a multimillion dollar study every 

4 years, where we will get the basically criticism—and we have 

seen it from other conventions—of what we are doing, instead of 

what we are doing now, which is setting the example and creating 

a process of continuous improvement that benefits Americans with 

disabilities, as well as people all over the world. 

Ms. HEUMANN. I believe, Senator, that our failure to ratify, in 

fact, does not give us the prominence that we should have. The 

United States has done such fantastic work in this area. I believe 

not ratifying, now that 116 countries have ratified and we know 

that more countries will be ratifying, we are being denied opportunities at international fora where disabled people and governments 

are sitting down to have genuine discussions about how to move 

this issue forward. 

I don’t think we have anything to hide. Our laws are good. We 

have good ways of monitoring. We find problems. We correct the 

59 

problems. We can afford to hear from others where they believe we 

are not doing something the right way. 

We have no obligation under this treaty to take recommendations 

that we think are inappropriate. But there may be recommendations that come forward that, in fact, may be fine, that we can 

learn from, that we can decide whether or not we want to utilize. 

I think in the area of disability, our expertise will be enabled to 

be distributed in a more—a more effective way if, in fact, we take 

the good work that we have done with pride and say the U.S. is 

willing to sit down and be at the table through ratification. 

It will give us an opportunity also to be able to speak to governments more critically when, in fact, we believe, they are not appropriately implementing their laws, when they are not doing budgeting in their own budgets to ensure that disability be taken into 

consideration, when they are not, in fact, looking at how they can 

educate disabled children when we know they may be able to do 

more than they are doing. 

It gives us a different opportunity and one which I really have 

repeatedly said, our Congresses over many, many years have continued to reinforce the work that we have done. We use that issue 

when we travel overseas. We talk about the bipartisan work that 

our Congress is able to achieve, coming together on this issue of 

disability. 

So I just want to say we don’t believe we are submitting. We believe it would be a very positive effort, and it would be one which 

really would, I think, allow benefits both for Americans here in the 

United States and would advance the rights of disabled people 

around the world. 

Senator DEMINT. Well, I admire your work and your goals, and 

I have the same goals. I just think the history, if we look at what 

the United Nations has done with an incredible amount of U.S. 

money, I think there is reason to question that they could actually 

improve the process we have already begun. But we clearly disagree on that, but we agree on your goals. 

Thank you very much for being here. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the courtesy of some extra time. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. I am delighted to use the extra time. 

I think it is important to be able to vet all of this as adequately 

as possible. 

I would just say to the Senator if he could convince me that an 

extra 3 weeks or a month was going to open his mind to supporting 

the treaty, I might consider it. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I might also add that in all the years I have been 

here, never has this Congress been doing as little as it is doing 

today. And I have ceased to be sympathetic after 6 months on the 

super committee of trying to reach an agreement in a nonnegotiating atmosphere. I am not very sympathetic to the notion that we 

all need a lot more time to do things. 

Only the United States Congress takes the kind of time it does 

to ‘‘consider things.’’ And I think the American public and a lot of 

people expect us to do our work and do it faster, do it better. And 

I hope we are going to do that. 

60 

Senator Coons. I have some questions, but Senator Coons was 

here. And then I will come back to him. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Chairman Kerry. And thank you for 

convening this hearing. 

I, with you, believe that the American people expect us to continue our work and to be diligent and thorough and engaged in 

considering important opportunities for us to expand American 

leadership at home and abroad, and particularly on an important 

and bipartisan issue of civil rights and civil liberties such as the 

rights of persons with disabilities. 

And I want to thank Senator Durbin for his leadership on this 

particular Convention and topic and Senators McCain and Harkin, 

who testified earlier. I was honored to join them, as well as Senators Udall, Barrasso, and Moran, in advocating that the committee take up the consideration of ratification of this treaty. 

As Senators McCain and Harkin emphasized in their testimony, 

bipartisanship has long been the hallmark of American leadership 

on protecting the rights of citizens with disabilities. And today, I 

believe we need to continue that proud tradition and extend that 

leadership globally with the ratification of the CRPD. 

I was particularly moved by Senator McCain’s reading of Senator 

Dole’s letter and think it is important for us to recognize the very 

real positive opportunities embedded in ratification. So if I might 

first, Ms. Heumann, what would be the impact of ratification on 

our veteran community? 

I was struck at just how broad and nearly unanimous amongst 

the veterans community support was for ratification. How would 

ratification specifically help promote access for our wounded warriors traveling overseas? 

Ms. HEUMANN. First, it would allow our wounded warriors to be 

a part of discussions that may take place overseas. They may be 

part of businesses that are going overseas to look at issues of implementation of accessibility standards, possibly selling products 

like ramps and other kinds of technology—wheelchairs, et cetera— 

that could be used by veterans overseas, non-U.S. veterans overseas, as well as by others. 

I think veterans play a very critical role in those efforts because 

a disabled veteran who is then wanting to go out and work and actively participate in society demonstrates a very strong message 

that in the United States, regardless of disability, we believe people 

are able to continue with their life, make advancements, and make 

major contributions to society. And veterans really stand in a 

unique position in that regard. 

So that is one thing that I would say about veterans. Veterans 

and civilians also are wishing to study overseas. The ability to be 

able to take our knowledge and experience about what we have 

done with universities here, great disabled student services offices 

that have removed barriers that over the last 40 years have resulted in people with psychiatric disabilities, physical disabilities, 

intellectual disabilities, blindness, deafness, et cetera, who are now 

attending community colleges and universities. 

Where in many other countries, I mean, I meet—I visit countries, 

and I am astonished by some of the barriers. Blind people in certain countries not being able to study in the field of technology. NoVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
61 

body knows why, but they are not allowed to study in the field of 

technology. 

A disabled veteran who happens to be blind, who may, in fact, 

have studied, being able to go overseas and being able to show 

what our universities have been able to do for them and how they 

are now in a position of leadership. Those are all very important 

areas that we can lead on. 

Senator COONS. You mentioned in your previous testimony that 

upward of 90 percent of disabled children in the developing world 

do not attend school. What might ratification do to strengthen the 

efforts of the U.S. Government overseas either through multilateral 

institutions or directly or through bilateral effort or in partnership 

with NGOs, how might ratification help strengthen our current efforts to improve the opportunities for disabled children to fully participate in education overseas? 

Ms. HEUMANN. It allows us to use our expertise, both for agencies like the Department of Education and then international organizations that are doing work overseas in the area of education, to 

be more inclusive of taking the knowledge that we have learned on 

how to educate disabled children effectively. It allows USAID and 

the State Department to do more than just be looked at as 

grantmaking agencies, but really also to be able to sit down and 

use our expertise. 

When I was recently in Ethiopia, we had some very productive 

discussions with the Ministry of Education that is really seriously 

grappling with many of the issues about how to educate disabled 

children, both in urban and rural areas where they have additional 

challenges, and some fantastic staff who have very good experience. 

But they really want to know the nuts and bolts. 

And we have people in the United States, for example, from universities who are traveling overseas. In some cases, courses are 

being set up that they are teaching. They are working with universities on some very pragmatic issues that we have learned about. 

For example, universities, when they set up schools of education, 

including that issue of education for disabled children be a part of 

the general training for teachers in general, that they can get basic 

training on how to work with children who have different types of 

disabilities. I think these are some of the very basic mechanisms 

that we can utilize to advance the knowledge and expertise that we 

have here and to share it with other countries overseas. 

Senator COONS. And if I might, last, what sort of—do you have 

any quantification of the sort of market opportunities there might 

be for the sale of technologies, of equipment and materials? If we 

are one of the world leaders in helping with adaptive technologies 

and helping with building modifications and retrofits, with supportive services, what sorts of market opportunities are there that 

we might be missing out on because we are simply observers rather 

than advocates, supporters, ratifiers of this important Convention? 

Ms. HEUMANN. I believe that there can be significant markets 

that can be developed and are developed. In areas like information 

technology, we are seeing—I read in one of the reports that had 

come in the other day about how a company, in fact, is now selling 

cell phones in Africa that will be accessible for blind people. 

62 

These are things that are happening whether or not U.S. companies—some of the U.S. companies are obviously taking advantage 

of this now. But I think one of the big issues, especially in business, is that as people see there is a growing market, business people understand they want to gravitate to that market. 

And one of the issues with the CRPD and 116 countries having 

ratified is that disabled people in those countries are also demanding more. Our ability to demonstrate and show the products that 

we can sell to them and, in many cases, also go into those countries 

and help learn how to make their own products. So there are organizations, for example, in this country, that have been working in 

Africa and Asia and others, going in and helping people learn how 

to make wheelchairs that can be maintained very simply, training 

people so that bicycle makers can also repair wheelchairs. 

There are many different ways that we can look at the business 

market, but I think we have great opportunities. And we have 

great creativity in the business community. 

Senator COONS. Well, thank you. 

I think this is an opportunity for us to show values leadership, 

but also an opportunity for us to explore and develop both opportunities for education in the developing world, opportunities for our 

own veterans to travel and to represent us, and opportunities for 

us to fully participate in the expansion of opportunities for people 

with disabilities worldwide. 

Thank you for your testimony today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Coons. And thank 

you also for your willingness to chair a little bit as we balance 

schedules here. 

Let me just ask a couple of questions. We have two other panels, 

and everybody is being very patient, and each of the panels are extraordinarily important. So we will wrap up here momentarily and 

seamlessly transition right away into the second panel. 

I just want to ask you very quickly. I want to come back to Senator DeMint’s question a moment ago. I just want to clarify for the 

record that Article 25 of the Convention could not be more clear 

about the requirements and powers that parties have with respect 

to this question of nondiscrimination abortion or obligation. 

And it is with respect to health issues, there is only a nondiscrimination obligation. There is no requirement to do something 

extra or to not do something. 

Ms. HEUMANN. Correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. And that is correct, is it not? 

Ms. HEUMANN. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. I just want to make that crystal clear on the 

record here that Article 25 could not be more clear with respect to 

that. 

Second, the issue has been asked, and appropriately, by a number of Senators why—so why do we need it? What are we really 

going to get? I don’t think that is clear enough for the record yet, 

and I want you to really try to bear down on it a little bit. 

If we join the Convention, some people say we can get this 

progress no matter what, and the United States will continue to 

lead, et cetera. So I really want you to try to give us some examVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
63 

ples, tell us why we need to join the multilateral Convention, and 

show us perhaps some specific examples of where our absence or 

where our presence on the disabilities committee would actually 

improve the performance. Could you do that, please? 

Ms. HEUMANN. Sure. Our failure thus far to ratify means that 

at the upcoming meeting in September, where there will be a new 

slate of people running for office, we will not be able to vote. That 

means that we will really not be able to also affect the votes of 

other individuals. 

I think it is important for us at this particular meeting where 

these discussions will be going on, that we are able to critically 

look at those people who will be on the committee. Look for the 

best people. Not only be able to vote for the best people, but also 

to be able to help influence those people who will be serving on the 

committee. 

The committee, we believe, is an important one. It needs to be 

a knowledgeable one because it is going to be giving advice and recommendations to governments around the world. So that is one 

critical issue. 

I think other opportunities where we can be able to discuss 

things like accessible transportation, accessible standards in general. Elections, a very important issue. Our ability to really help 

participate in discussions, to be able to advance work in the area 

of elections is also important. 

The CHAIRMAN. But somebody might sit there and say, well, you 

know, that world is going to go on anyway. They can see what we 

have done. What do we really gain by being part of that? 

Ms. HILL. I would suggest that there are going to be discussions 

at the states parties meetings where we cannot participate as 

states parties where individual countries are deciding what standards and what policies they should be using going forward. 

By not ratifying, we are getting a cloud of questions. 

Is there really something wrong with your law that keeps you 

from not ratifying? Are you really not committed to this that keeps 

you from not ratifying? 

That may make countries turn to other countries who have ratified to say, well, maybe your approach is actually better. And in 

those cases, it is very important that our approaches are in the 

mix. 

So, for example, a veteran comes home with an injury and receives his or her rehabilitation here and learns how to use a wheelchair in the situations that we set up here—what a 5-foot turning 

radius looks like, a 36-inch ramp, a ramp with a certain slope—and 

is prepared to deal with those things. And then will be expected to 

go to other countries, and they may have adopted, because of our 

absence from the table, other standards—— 

The CHAIRMAN. So the bottom line is we may not be protecting 

our veterans and our people with disabilities rights as effectively 

and significantly as we would want to. 

Ms. HILL. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is that correct? 

Ms. HILL. That is correct. 

Ms. HEUMANN. Absolutely. That is correct. 

64 

The CHAIRMAN. I would assume also that we are not necessarily 

finding best practices put into place because we have been dealing 

with this for longer, and we are not at the table with the kind of 

credibility that allows us to be able to affect an outcome that could 

be either less costly, more effective, or a number of other positive 

benefits. 

Ms. HEUMANN. And it also, I think, denies us opportunities to 

learn about new ways that we may be working with things like development of accessibility regulations that other governments may 

need to use in places like rural communities. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now with respect to the federalism reservation 

that you are proposing, Ms. Hill, I think this has been touched on 

a little bit. But again, I think it is critical to clarify, and I want 

the record to be crystal clear on it. 

States will not be required to change their laws in any way in 

order to comply with the Convention. Is that accurate? 

Ms. HILL. States are not covered by the Convention. The Federal 

Government is covered by the Convention. And to the extent that 

the Federal Government does not have authority under our Federal 

system to regulate States or to the extent that particular issues are 

left to the States, those States retain the ability to maintain those 

issues without changing our Federal balance between Federal and 

State power. 

The CHAIRMAN. So the Convention would not give the Federal 

Government any new authority to somehow force a State government to change their law or regulation with respect to disabled? 

Ms. HILL. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. And would joining the Convention in any way 

shift the balance of power between the Federal Government and 

the States—— 

Ms. HILL. No. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. With regard to any disabilities 

issues? 

Ms. HILL. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions of this panel? 

Senator DEMINT. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator DeMint. 

Senator DEMINT. Just a final comment. Again, I appreciate the 

questions. I appreciate the panel. But I think, as we often do up 

here, we are confusing our goals with the means to those goals. 

There is no reason that we can’t join with other countries and 

organizations around the world to develop best practices and share 

information on disabilities. But a treaty has a high standard in a 

three-quarters vote in the Senate for a very particular reason. It 

is something that goes beyond voluntary cooperation. 

And while we are saying this is a treaty with no authority, can’t 

force us to do anything. In that case, it doesn’t need to be a treaty. 

It needs to be an association, an organization, a working group that 

gets together. 

We can accomplish these goals without another entanglement in 

a sense that involves some standardization, which I found in my 

work in the private sector, when you centralize control, you standardize certain quality aspects, you generally limit long-term continuous improvement. 

65 

So I don’t deny that the goals are good. The cooperation is good. 

The best practice is good. But the centralization of control here, 

even though we are saying there is no authority behind it, I think 

could very well limit our ability to continuously improve a process 

that the more I listen to the witnesses, the more I hear it is already happening. 

That the commercial aspect of this is getting involved as demand 

around the world improves. Now with the Internet and people able 

to find out about these things, it is likely to move ahead. But a 

treaty like this is more likely to standardize certain technologies 

and protocols that are likely to limit the innovation and improvement in the future. 

That has been my experience not just with the United Nations, 

but every effort by major large groups of centralized control when 

really the power is going to come from the bottom up. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, with all due respect, Senator, the power is 

coming from the bottom up, and it is not centralizing control. It is, 

in fact, control lies still within each country that applies the law. 

It is applying a broader standard. And we have applied those 

broader standards in any number of ways. 

With all due respect, when the Senator says we deny long-term 

improvement when you standardize, every experience of the Voting 

Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, of the expansion of rights for people in this country, and the ADA itself, I mean, you can look at the 

examples of the numbers of people with disabilities who are in the 

workforce today who are educated and teaching and doing things 

productively who never would have been, and they are doing so 

under a standardized aspiration, if you will. 

And the aspiration is equality of opportunity, which is at the core 

of what this country is all about. So I would just deeply disagree 

with the Senator’s conclusion with respect to what is being sought 

here. Not one power of the United States is given up. Not one 

power of the United States is given up, and in fact, to some degree, 

we wind up handicapping ourselves by not being party because 

other folks will set other kinds of standards and other things which 

we may not have met or may not have agreed to or could have affected. 

I think Attorney General Thornburgh and others who have had 

long experience with this can testify. I am not here to testify, but 

I do think that since the Senator didn’t ask a question and made 

a statement, I wanted to equally make a statement in disagreement with that. 

And I would just ask you both, as you sat there and listened to 

the Senator, I mean, he is basically saying we can do this without 

it. I mean, that is the bottom line. Can we do this without it? Can 

we be as effective? Can we achieve our goal without this? 

Ms. HEUMANN. I think we have repeatedly stated this morning 

that we don’t believe that is true. I think we have tried to lay out 

this morning the arguments of why it is critically important that 

we be at the multiple fora that are available to us. 

But most importantly, I think it is not appropriate to look at the 

CRPD as anything which is centralized because as you have said, 

Senator, the work that is going to be done to make changes in the 

66 

lives of disabled people is done at the country level. It is done at 

the village level. It is done at the level where people are living. 

Our ultimate work will be successful when we have been able, 

working with the CRPD and the bilateral and multilaterals, to 

make the significant changes. That will take many, many years. 

This is when we will see opportunities that will be afforded to 

many people. 

We know that in many of the countries we are dealing in, these 

are not simple fixes. But our ability to share our technical knowledge is critically important and cannot be done in as meaningful 

a way when we are not ratified. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I might remind folks, in the 1980s when I 

first came here, I can remember there were still buildings where 

people with disabilities couldn’t punch an elevator button, couldn’t 

get to a second floor. Couldn’t access a telephone. Couldn’t do fundamental kinds of things. 

And the reason they can do those things today is because we set 

an aspirational standard, and people sought to achieve it. So I 

would urge Senators to look at this very, very carefully. 

And it is not complicated. It is not hard to read it. It is not that 

big, long, and complicated a thing. And I urge Senators to look at 

the de minimis, de minimis, the nonexistent give-up of any State 

of any rights, of any current capacity in our country. And that is 

why I said in the outset in my opening comments that I only see 

the upside. But that is for others to determine each for themselves. 

I want to thank you on this panel very, very much. We really appreciate your testimony. We will leave the record open for a week 

for the submission of questions in writing and really appreciate you 

being here today. 

The CHAIRMAN. If I could ask everybody to sit quietly and the 

second panel will just come up and immediately take their places? 

We would like to begin their testimony right away, if we can. 

And we have still a third panel, too. So we are going to continue 

right through, folks, and we are not going to truncate anybody. Oh, 

it is? So we have everybody consolidated on the one panel, which 

is great. 

Attorney General, if you would? Thank you. 

So on this panel, we have the Honorable—who do we have here? 

The Honorable Richard Thornburgh, former Attorney General of 

the United States, who will lead off. Mr. John Wodatch, the former 

Chief of the Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights. Mr. Steven 

Groves of the Heritage Foundation and Michael Farris of Patrick 

Henry College and Mr. John Lancaster, first lieutenant in the 

United States Marine Corps, retired. 

So, General, would you lead off, please? Do you mind? 

We are delighted to welcome you back here. 

Thank you for your patience and thanks for your willingness to 

come and testify. And thank you also for your many hats you have 

worn in public service. We greatly appreciate your presence. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD THORNBURGH, FORMER 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, OF COUNSEL, 

K&L GATES, LLP, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. THORNBURGH. Good morning to you all. 

67 

Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Lugar, members of the committee, as a veteran of almost 50 years in the disability rights 

movement and perhaps more importantly as a proud parent of a 

son with extreme intellectual and physical disabilities who has become in this great society of ours a contributing member, I am delighted to be here this morning to testify in favor of the ratification 

of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

This is an important component of the worldwide effort to advance disability rights. Ratification by the United States Senate 

would mark a major step forward in the effort to end discrimination and to promote the rights of as many as 1 billion men, women, 

and children with disabilities around the world who seek vindication of their preeminent human rights in an ever-challenging 

world. 

As you have heard, a total of 153 countries, including the United 

States, have signed the Convention, and 116 have ratified its 

terms. We literally stand today at the very cusp of a new era of 

worldwide recognition of disability rights. A major leap forward in 

this effort would be accomplished by timely U.S. Senate ratification 

of this Convention. 

It is obvious that the world community has chosen to take an important and long overdue step toward bringing people with disabilities all over the world into the mainstream of the human rights 

movement by adopting this Convention. I must applaud the disability community for its tireless efforts in what must have seemed 

at times to be an uphill battle for international recognition of these 

important rights. 

The Convention represents important principles that as Americans we hold dear—basic recognition and equal protection of every 

person under the law, nondiscrimination, the fundamental importance of independent living, and the right to make basic choices 

about our lives. We pioneered these principles under American law 

through passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. 

We in the United States are demonstrating daily that people 

with disabilities can participate fully in our democracy. We are 

demonstrating that society as a whole is richer and better off when 

people with disabilities are included in every aspect of our lives. 

It is my hope and expectation that the United States will assume 

an equally important leadership role in helping to promote these 

basic principles worldwide by the ratification of this Convention. 

Over 20 years ago while serving as Attorney General, I testified 

before House and Senate committees of this Congress in support of 

the ADA. During those hearings, I acknowledged that no piece of 

legislation could alone change the longstanding misperceptions that 

many people have about disability, misperceptions based largely on 

stereotype, ignorance, and fear of what is different. 

Any reshaping of attitudes would have to be the gradual result 

not of words or ideas in the laws, but of bringing people with disabilities from the margins of society into the mainstream of American life. In our schools, in our workplaces, on buses and trains, in 

our courthouses, restaurants, theaters, and congregations where 

they not only have an absolute right to be, but where we have an 

obligation as fellow human beings to welcome them as equals. 

68 

In the years following 1990, we have made remarkable progress 

not only celebrated here at home, but recognized abroad. Because 

of our adoption of the ADA and other disability rights legislation, 

the United States is viewed internationally as a pioneering role 

model for disability rights. 

Despite progress already made, disability as a global issue remains near the bottom of the list in many governments when it 

comes to setting their priorities. People with disabilities remain 

among the poorest, least education, the most abused and excluded 

people on earth. We must recognize that the challenges we face are 

intimately linked with the very circumstances of economic, social, 

and political marginalization that affect people with disabilities 

around the world. 

It is important to note that ratification of the Convention will require no new domestic legislation and will impose no new cost upon 

U.S. taxpayers. As done in our own ADA, the Convention simply 

ensures nondiscrimination on the basis of disability, guaranteeing 

that persons with disabilities enjoy the same rights as other persons. 

Some said that because of America’s comprehensive domestic 

protections a treaty on disability would have no relevance in our 

own country. But let us hold on a minute. We are, indeed, at this 

time the most progressive country in the world when it comes to 

the domestic protection of disability rights. 

The universality of rights and fundamental freedoms as expressed in our own Declaration of Independence is the foundation 

on which our entire society is based. Respect for human rights is 

also a stated principle of our foreign policy, precisely because we 

recognize that stability, security, and economic opportunity in any 

society presupposes social order based on respect for the rights of 

its citizens. 

Given this history and these values, it would seem natural for 

the United States to assume a leading role, not a passive one, in 

the effort to recognize and enforce an international treaty of this 

kind. As you have heard, misgivings expressed by critics of the 

Convention have already been addressed in reservations, understandings, and declarations contained in the package submitted by 

the administration. 

Ratification of the Disability Rights Convention is an opportunity 

for us to export to the world the very best we have to offer. This 

is a chance to use our rich national experience in disability rights, 

which has gained us the respect of the world community, to extend 

the principles embodied in the ADA to people with disabilities 

worldwide who today have no domestic protection. 

This is worthy of our leadership. We have everything to gain and 

nothing to lose by playing the role the world expects of us. We 

must ratify this Convention so that we can fulfill that role. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be with you this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thornburgh follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD THORNBURGH

It is a distinct pleasure for to me to testify in favor of the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the Convention or CRPD) as an 

important component of the worldwide effort to advance disability rights. Ratification by this body would mark a major step forward in the effort to end discriminaVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
69 

tion and to promote the rights of as many as 1 billion men, women, and children 

with disabilities around the world who seek vindication of their preeminent human 

rights in an ever-challenging world. 

To date, as I last looked, a total of 153 countries (including the United States) 

have signed the Convention and 116 have ratified its terms. We literally stand 

today at the very cusp of a new era of worldwide recognition of disability rights. 

A major leap forward in this effort would be accomplished by timely U.S. Senate 

ratification of the Convention. 

I. 

The road to this point has been a lengthy one and I think it may be useful to 

review how we have gotten to where we are as a means of aiding the process of 

further progress. In another context, a great American jurist, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., once observed, ‘‘A page of history is worth a volume 

of logic,’’ and in this movement as well I suggest that some history is an appropriate 

starting point. 

As many of you may know, I have been involved in the disability movement for 

many years. I was a founding director of the National Organization on Disability 

back in 1982 and later served as Vice Chairman of its international arm, the World 

Committee on Disability. I am also the father of a man with intellectual and physical disability—my son, Peter, who was seriously brain-injured at the age of 4 

months in a 1960 automobile accident which tragically took the life of his mother, 

my first wife. 

As Governor of Pennsylvania and Attorney General of the United States, I have 

had the privilege to work in official capacities for the inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of life. Indeed, it was my special privilege to serve as the 

point person for the administration of President George H.W. Bush in the bipartisan 

effort to secure the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990. 

This work has become a bit of a family affair, as my present wife, Ginny, whom 

I married in 1963, founded the Religion and Disability Program of the National 

Organization on Disability, designed to insure spiritual and religious access to persons with physical, mental, and intellectual disability. She is now the Director of 

the Interfaith Initiative at the American Association of People with Disabilities coordinating efforts by leaders of all faiths to advance the cause of disability rights. 

In her responsibility as Convener of the Interfaith Disability Advocacy Coalition 

(IDAC), she enlisted 26 religious or religiously affiliated organizations to send a letter of support for the Convention to members of this committee. We have thus had 

the great privilege of merging our personal and career objectives in this worthy 

cause. 

It is obvious that the world community has taken an important—and long overdue—step toward bringing people with disabilities all over the world into the mainstream of the human rights movement by adopting this Convention. I must applaud 

the disability community for its tireless efforts in what must have seemed at times 

to be an uphill battle for international recognition of this important principle. 

I know firsthand from my service as an Under Secretary General at the United 

Nations in the immediate post-cold-war era of the long struggle to obtain passage 

of this Convention. The effort had its genesis in the 1981 Year of Disabled Persons, 

followed by the Decade of Disabled Persons and the promulgation of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons, all providing focal points for efforts 

to internationalize concerns about disability rights. I particularly recall attending 

the historic gathering in Montreal in October 1992 of the very first International 

Conference of Ministers Responsible for the Status of Persons With Disabilities 

where 73 leaders of governments throughout the world met for the first time to 

exchange ideas and fashion strategies which ultimately led to the adoption of the 

Convention. 

The Convention represents important principles that as Americans we hold dear— 

basic recognition and equal protection of every person under the law, nondiscrimination, the fundamental importance of independent living, and the right to make basic 

choices about our lives. We pioneered these basic principles under American law 

through passage of the ADA. We in the United States are demonstrating that people 

with disabilities can participate fully in our democracy. We are demonstrating that 

society, as a whole, is richer and better off when people with disabilities are included fully in every aspect of life. It is my hope and expectation that the United 

States will assume an equally important leadership role in helping to promote these 

basic principles worldwide by the ratification of this Convention. 

Over 20 years ago, while serving as U.S. Attorney General, I testified before 

House and Senate committees of the U.S. Congress in support of the ADA. During 

70 

those hearings I acknowledged that no piece of legislation could alone change the 

longstanding misperceptions that many people have about disability— 

misperceptions based largely on stereotype, ignorance, and fear of what is different. 

Any reshaping of attitudes would have to be the gradual result not of the words 

or ideas in the laws, but of bringing people with disabilities from the margins of 

society into the mainstream of American life—in our schools and workplaces, on 

busses and trains, and in our courthouses, restaurants, theaters and congregations—where they not only have an absolute right to be but where we have an obligation as fellow human beings to welcome them as equals. 

The effort to secure passage of the ADA was difficult. Those of us who wanted 

to see it happen were given countless reasons why it couldn’t be done. We were told 

that the climate in Congress wasn’t right, it would be too expensive, too complicated, ineffective, impossible to enforce—even that the country in general just 

wasn’t ready for it. So we discussed, debated, argued, researched, analyzed, negotiated, pleaded, convinced and, ultimately, drafted and passed the most progressive 

disability rights legislation the world had ever seen. This legislation, with its innovative concepts such as the need for ‘‘reasonable accommodation,’’ is changing America. It has truly made us more representative, more democratic, and more empowering by ending the unchecked exclusion of 54 million Americans from our daily 

lives. 

Of course we still have a long way to go in our own country. The ADA isn’t perfect 

and people with disabilities in America continue to face serious challenges. Court 

decisions have sometimes hindered the full implementation of the ADA and required 

legislative responses such as the 2008 ADA Amendments Act. Still, in the years following 1990, we’ve made remarkable progress that is not only celebrated here at 

home but also recognized abroad. Because of our adoption of the ADA and other disability rights legislation, the United States is viewed internationally as a pioneering 

role model for disability rights. Disability activists from other countries have taken 

the ADA to their governments and said, ‘‘This is how it should be done. We need 

to do this here in our country.’’ And governments around the world have responded. 

As one who worked hard to gain protection of these rights in the United States, I 

am very proud to see how these basic principles are now on the way to being established as a part of international law through the adoption of the CRPD. As we overcame so many barriers to the enactment and implementation of the ADA, I am 

confident that we can be part of an even greater coalition to bring about worldwide 

support for this Convention as well. 

Despite progress already made, disability as a global issue remains near the bottom of the list of priorities in many governments and societies. People with disabilities remain among the poorest, least educated, and most abused and excluded people on earth. We must recognize that the challenges we face are intimately linked 

with the very circumstances of economic, social, and political marginalization that 

affect people with disabilities around the world. 

While the adoption of the CPRD represents a truly significant accomplishment for 

the international community and a great source of hope for people with disabilities 

everywhere, it will obviously not be enough. Between the adoption of the Convention 

and the actual securing of the important rights it seeks to guarantee will no doubt 

lie a long and tortuous path which will test the commitment, tenacity, and political 

will of the international community—from national leaders to grassroots advocacy 

organizations to individual citizens bent upon justice for all. 

However, we must also keep in mind that the Convention can be a strong tool— 

as well as an inspiration—for civil society around the world. NGOs and advocates 

will have a new legal framework within which to push for reforms based on legal 

obligations. 

II. 

Let me address for a moment the painful and, I must admit, somewhat puzzling 

question of the seeming reluctance of some in our own Nation to continue our lead 

role in this international effort. Let’s look at some of the questions and concerns 

that have been raised about this Convention as it has reached this body for ratification. 

To begin with, it has been argued that disability rights are more appropriately 

addressed a solely a domestic concern, given the complexity of the issues involved. 

In other words, this really isn’t an appropriate subject for international protection. 

Certainly, good domestic legislation in every country would be the ideal solution. 

But since many countries don’t have such protections, it does not seem reasonable 

to expect that this will change dramatically without international pressure. The fact 

71 

is, for many countries, international conventions have already served as a catalyst 

for the development of important domestic protections in many other areas. 

As a practical matter, the United States will have much more authority to speak 

out about these and other forms of discrimination against people with disabilities 

worldwide if we agree to abide by the same international scrutiny at home. We already have laws in place that are consistent with the CRPD. But, it is correctly 

noted that by ratifying the Convention, the United States agrees to report regularly 

to an international advisory body. We have nothing to hide. We can only gain from 

participating in the process of international review. Moreover, we should not be so 

proud as to think that we cannot learn from other countries about how to meet the 

challenge of providing even better opportunities for people with disabilities. 

Some have looked at the final text of the Convention and found it lacking in 

strict, enforceable protections. Some say that it lacks the kind of detail that we 

fought so hard to include in the ADA and that we have found so essential for the 

enforcement of basic rights in the United States. We must keep in mind that a 

human rights convention is a legal instrument that must apply consistently around 

the world—in countries rich and poor, in countries with widely varying legal systems, in many countries where the idea of full participation for people with disabilities may be radically new and untested. The flexibility of this Convention is its 

strength—not its weakness. It lays down the core values and principles that are 

essential to ending discrimination against people with disabilities in any society. It 

provides governments with guidance and direction now lacking under the general 

provisions of international law. Article 9, for example, requires governments to ‘‘take 

appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis 

with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications . . . and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, 

both in urban and in rural areas.’’ Article 24 recognizes the rights of persons with 

disabilities to education and requires governments to provide ‘‘an inclusive education system at all levels . . . [e]nabling persons with disabilities to participate 

effectively in a free society.’’ 

The Convention provides governments with core, minimum standards needed to 

make essential reforms without locking different countries into one particular approach or another. As noted, the Convention creates a Committee on the Rights of 

Persons with Disabilities that will review reports of governments and will issue general recommendations about how to bring about full compliance with the Convention. Through this process of interpretation, governments at every level of economic 

and social development can receive guidance about steps they can take to bring 

about enforcement of the Convention. 

At the same time, it is important to note that ratification of the Convention will 

require no new domestic legislation and will impose no new costs upon U.S. taxpayers. As does our own ADA, the Convention simply ensures nondiscrimination on 

the basis of disability, guaranteeing that persons with disabilities enjoy the same 

rights as other persons. 

Finally, some have said that, because of America’s comprehensive domestic protections, a treaty on disability would have no relevance in our own country. But, let’s 

hold on a minute. We are indeed at this time the most progressive country in the 

world when it comes to the domestic protection of disability rights. The universality 

of rights and fundamental freedoms—as expressed in our Declaration of Independence—is the foundation on which our entire society is based. Respect for human 

rights is also a stated principle of our foreign policy—precisely because we recognize 

that stability, security, and economic opportunity in any society presuppose a social 

order based on respect for the rights of its citizens. Given this history and these 

values, it would seem natural for the United States to assume a leading role—not 

a passive one—in the effort to recognize and enforce an international treaty of this 

kind. 

Misgivings expressed by critics of the Convention have already been addressed in 

reservations, understandings and declarations (RUDs) contained in the package submitted by the administration. By addressing federalism, providing a zone of private 

action protected by the Constitution and declaring the Convention to be non-selfexecuting, these RUDs protect U.S. sovereignty and recognize the Convention as a 

nondiscrimination instrument, similar to our own ADA. 

Ratification of the Disability Rights Convention is an opportunity to export to the 

world the very best we have to offer. This is a chance to use our rich national experience in disability rights—which has gained us the respect of the world community—to extend the principles embodied in the ADA to the hundreds of millions of 

people with disabilities worldwide who today have no domestic protection. This is 

worthy of our leadership. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose by playing 

72 

the role the world expects of us. We must ratify the Convention so that we can fulfill that role. 

III. 

Just as in the case of the ADA, we must recognize that the Convention will not 

provide instant legal solutions which can effect immediate changes in attitudes and 

cultural perceptions; nor will it dispel the ignorance that leads to discrimination and 

human rights abuses of people with disabilities. What it will do is create a permanent place for disability within the human rights framework. It will put disability 

issues on the radar screen of governments and societies as a legitimate human 

rights concern to which they must pay heed. It will provide guidance and standards 

and create legal obligations for governments to respect the rights of this sizable population. It can serve as a powerful advocacy tool for the global disability movement 

to promote inclusion and equality of opportunity. 

Before closing let me say a word, in particular, about the developing nations of 

the world wherein, it is estimated, some 80 percent of the world’s disabled population lives. Most of these persons are at the margin of their respective societies. 

Priority concerns of just surviving—combating hunger, securing shelter, and eking 

out a daily existence—unfortunately take present precedence over concerns for people with disabilities. 

It is sometimes said that, in nations struggling with a full agenda of political and 

economic problems and the effort to achieve basic human rights for all their citizens, 

the interests of persons with disabilities are likely to be set to one side for ‘‘future 

consideration,’’ i.e., when these other more important matters have been addressed. 

On the contrary, I would suggest that what responsible leaders of developing nations need to realize is the unique opportunity they have to embed disability rights 

in their emerging institutions as part of their development efforts, to build an infrastructure of government, economy, and human rights that includes and respects the 

interests of persons with disabilities from the very beginning. For it is no exaggeration to say that the way a society treats its citizens with disabilities is a valid measure of the quality of life and respect for human dignity in that society. 

Even after ratification and implementation of the Convention, change will be 

gradual—and perhaps painfully slow, to be sure, but these represent important first 

steps we can take toward promoting change on a global scale. This Convention can 

help all of us to focus world attention on those millions of people worldwide whose 

rights have been ignored for far too long. Let’s be about the business of seeing that 

those rights are honored, and implemented, now and forever more, by providing 

timely ratification of this important Convention. 

Senator COONS [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Thornburgh. 

Mr. Wodatch. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN WODATCH, FORMER CHIEF OF THE DISABILITY RIGHTS SECTION, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. WODATCH. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. 

Thank you for your invitation to present my views this morning, 

and I ask that my full statement be submitted for the record. 

Senator COONS. Without objection. 

Mr. WODATCH. I come before you this morning to urge you to 

support ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons 

with Disabilities. During my 42-year tenure with the Federal Government, I worked on disability rights issues for both Republican 

and Democratic administrations. I witnessed firsthand the strong 

bipartisan support for disability rights that is our Nation’s tradition. 

I authored the first comprehensive disability rights regulations, 

served as a member of the White House team under President 

George H.W. Bush that negotiated the ADA, and then, with the 

help of Attorney General Thornburgh, led the enforcement of the 

ADA at the Department of Justice, and then recently served as a 

73 

member of the U.S. delegation that negotiated this very disabilities 

Convention. 

The disabilities Convention is modeled on the disability rights 

laws of the United States. It adopts the successful and balanced approach of U.S. Federal disability rights law dating back to 1973, 

and it embodies the core principles of nondiscrimination and equality of opportunity. 

The treaty seeks to empower persons with disabilities to be independent, to claim responsibility for their lives, and to be able to 

make their own choices. 

In 2001, the George W. Bush administration charged the U.S. 

delegation that was going to the U.N. to deal with the ad hoc committee that was considering the formulation of this treaty with two 

main tasks—to provide assistance in the development of the new 

treaty and to ensure that the treaty reflects the basic concepts of 

American disability law. We successfully followed President Bush’s 

directions. The disabilities Convention follows U.S. principles, ensuring that citizens and persons with disabilities have the same 

rights as other citizens. 

The package of three reservations, five understandings, and a 

declaration proposed by the administration are appropriate and 

necessary. These RUDs will ensure that the treaty will require no 

new Federal laws and no new or revised State laws. The compliance with our own disability laws, including the definition of ‘‘disability,’’ will constitute compliance with the treaty, and the treaty 

will give rise to no new individual rights. 

These RUDs also ensure that ratification will have no impact on 

the Federal budget and will maintain the sovereignty of the United 

States and the prerogatives of our States. Nothing in the treaty undermines U.S. sovereignty. By the terms of the treaty itself, the 

disabilities committee, which has been much debated this morning, 

is advisory only. Its suggestions, observations, and opinions are not 

binding and cannot compel any action in the United States. 

And if the treaty should be amended, any new amendments will 

not apply to the United States unless the United States specifically 

and formally consents to the changes. Nothing in the treaty itself 

also changes or undermines parental rights in the United States. 

In fact, the treaty recognizes the primacy of the family. 

It calls the family, and this is a quote from the treaty, ‘‘the natural and fundamental group unit of society’’ and says that ‘‘it is entitled to protection and assistance.’’ 

The reservations on federalism and private conduct ensure that 

parental rights in this country, which are established mostly at the 

State and local level, remain unchanged. These reservations are 

eminently reasonable and are compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. And once included in the Senate resolution of 

advice and consent, these reservations will themselves become law. 

I also strongly believe that the U.S. ratification of the disability 

treaty is in the best interests of the United States. The result of 

our ratification over time will be a benefit to all Americans with 

disabilities and their families, including veterans, who work, study, 

travel, serve, retire, or live abroad. 

Ratification of the treaty will also enable the United States to 

provide leadership on disability issues, ensuring that international 

74 

implementation hews closely to the balanced approach of American 

disability rights law. Our failure to ratify the Disability Convention, which so clearly follows the pattern of our own disability 

rights laws and programs, has hampered the position of the United 

States as a world leader on disability rights issues. Ratification will 

enable the United States to share our experiences with other ratifying nations as they shape emerging disability rights policies and 

laws in their own countries. 

Further, the United States will seek a place on the U.N. disabilities committee, which is only open to experts from ratifying countries, and give us the potential to play a valuable role in shaping 

the work of that committee. The disabilities Convention has been 

ratified by 116 nations and the European Union. The time for Senate action to ratify the treaty is now. 

When he signed the ADA on July 26, 1990, President George 

Bush said, ‘‘Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.’’ The words and concepts that he signed into law that 

day now form the basis of the disabilities treaty. It is time for the 

United States to reposition itself as a world leader to help bring 

down these walls of exclusion for all nations around the globe and 

help make the world an accessible place for Americans with disabilities, including our veterans. 

I thank you for the opportunity to participate with you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wodatch follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN L. WODATCH

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for your invitation to 

present my views to the committee. I come before you this morning to urge you to 

support ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

I have a long history of work on disability rights issues. I have witnessed firsthand the strong bipartisan support for disability rights that is out Nation’s tradition. I retired last July from service in the Federal executive branch after 42 years 

of service. During that time I was the author of the Federal Government’s first comprehensive disability rights regulations, regulations implementing Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act, first issued in 1977. I was fortunate to work for Attorney 

General Dick Thornburgh during our Nation’s consideration of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act and served as a member of the White House team under President 

George H.W. Bush that negotiated the ADA. I then oversaw development of the 

ADA regulations and served as the head of the new unit at the Department of 

Justice that was created to implement the ADA. I also served as a member of the 

U.S. delegation that negotiated the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 

Disabilities. 

I. THE DISABILITIES CONVENTION AND U.S. DISABILITY RIGHTS LAW

The Disabilities Convention is modeled on the disability rights laws of the United 

States and adopts the successful and balanced approach of U.S. Federal disability 

rights law dating back to 1977. It embodies the traditional American ideals that 

form the basis of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other U.S. disability 

rights laws. These include the core principles of nondiscrimination and equality of 

opportunity. The treaty seeks to empower persons with disabilities to be independent, to claim personal responsibility for their own lives, and to be able to make 

their own choices. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, is a comprehensive civil rights law 

protecting the rights of persons with disabilities in the United States. Since it was 

signed into law in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush, it has literally changed 

the landscape of this country, opening up everyday American life to persons with 

disabilities. 

The ADA is, however, just one part of a rich and varied series of Federal protections of the rights of person with disabilities. The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 

ensures that Federal buildings will be accessible according to strict Federal design 

standards. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ensures that children 

75 

with disabilities will receive a free, appropriate education. The Fair Housing Act ensures that people with disabilities will have accessible housing. The Air Carrier 

Access Act opens air travel to persons with disabilities. The Help America Vote Act, 

as well as the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984, provide for an accessible electoral process, including accessible polling places. The ADA 

and Title V of the Rehabilitation Act provide a comprehensive framework, covering 

employment, transportation, public accommodations, telephone service, and all the 

activities of State and local governments to persons with disabilities. 

These laws have proven to be a success because they are grounded in nondiscrimination principles, and they provide a balanced approach to accessibility. 

Each requirement is tempered by limitations that reflect the difficulty and costs of 

achieving accessibility. Thus the obligation to make reasonable accommodation to 

employees is limited by undue hardship. Businesses do not have to make changes 

to their programs and services if they are too costly or would fundamentally change 

the nature of the program or service. Small employers (under 15 employees) are exempted from all requirements as are churches, other religious entities, and purely 

private clubs. 

I was fortunate to be a member of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Ad Hoc Committee that was considering the formulation of a disabilities Convention. The committee deliberated from 2001 to 2006, when the treaty was adopted by the U.N. The 

Bush administration charged us with two main tasks—to provide assistance in the 

development of the new treaty and to ensure that the treaty reflect the core concepts of American disability law. We successfully followed President Bush’s directions: the Disabilities Convention follows our U.S. principles. Its focus is nondiscrimination, ensuring that persons with disabilities enjoy the same rights as 

other citizens. Like the ADA, its rights are tempered by limitations. Reasonable accommodation is required but only if the modification is necessary and appropriate 

and only if it does not impose a disproportionate or undue burden. While the treaty 

does not itself contain a definition of disability, its guidelines for what constitutes 

a person with a disability conform closely to the definitions found in U.S law. In 

fact, the revised ADA definition of a person with a disability, adopted in 2008 in 

the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act, and signed into law by President Bush, fully comply with the concepts of the treaty. 

And the comprehensive nature of the treaty mirrors the U.S. approach to disability rights. Both recognize that persons with disabilities will not be able to enjoy 

equal opportunity unless there is broad coverage. Having an education loses its 

meaning if jobs are foreclosed to students with disabilities. Nondiscrimination in 

employment will not be meaningful unless persons can get to work on accessible 

transportation. Having a job will lose its meaning if persons are unable to enjoy the 

fruits of their labor, from dining at a restaurant, going to a movie, or traveling 

across the country. Thus, then, like U.S. law, the Disabilities Convention is comprehensive in its approach. It addresses access to facilities, political participation, 

access to justice, access to education, employment, health care, participation in 

public and cultural life, recreation, leisure activities, and sports. It upholds freedom 

of expression, access to information, the ability to live independently in one’s own 

community, and freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading 

treatment. 

In sum, the Disabilities Convention is an embodiment of the nondiscrimination 

principles developed in the United States. Its principles and, indeed, its language, 

come directly from U.S. law. 

II. RESERVATIONS, UNDERSTANDINGS, AND DECLARATIONS

The administration’s submission of the Disabilities Convention, which includes 

the President’s letter of transmittal and the Secretary of State’s report, makes clear 

that the Convention is exclusively a nondiscrimination treaty, i.e., the Disabilities 

Convention seeks to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy the same rights as 

everyone else and are given the same opportunities to live productive lives. The Secretary’s report includes reservations, understandings, and a declaration (RUDs) recommended for inclusion in the Senate’s resolution of advice and consent. Inclusion 

of these RUDs will facilitate ratification. Under the RUDs, U.S. obligations under 

the Convention will go no further than existing U.S. law. 

The package of three reservations, five understandings, and one declaration, contained in the Secretary’s report, maintains U.S. sovereignty and makes clear the extent of our obligations under the treaty and are thus an essential element of ratification. With the inclusion of this RUD package: 

No new Federal laws will be required to comply with the treaty; 

No State laws will have to be revised; 

76 

Compliance with our existing, rich panoply of disability laws will constitute 

compliance with the treaty; 

Our definitions of disability will continue in force; and 

No new individual rights and no individually enforceable rights will be created. These RUDs also ensure that ratification will have no impact on the Federal budget. Thus, I recommend that the Senate Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification contain the nine RUDs proposed in the Secretary’s Report. 

Perhaps the two most important reservations are those recommended on federalism and on private conduct. A number of treaty provisions cover matters that 

are the province of State law. For example, education, the exercise of legal capacity, 

civil commitment, birth registration, living in the community, and marriage and 

family relationships are areas that are governed in the United States under State 

law. While many State and local laws and regulations clearly comply with the provisions of the Disabilities Convention on these issues, some state and local standards 

can be interpreted as less rigorous than the treaty would require. Thus, a reservation that would preserve the existing balance between Federal and State jurisdiction 

over these matters is appropriate and necessary. 

The federalism reservation ensures that the obligations undertaken by the United 

States upon ratification would be implemented in a manner consistent with the existing allocation of authority between the Federal Government and the 50 states. 

The federalism reservation would limit our obligations under the treaty to areas 

covered by Federal law and would require no changes to State and local law because 

of the Convention’s provisions. 

The proposed reservation on certain private conduct is also important. A number 

of Federal disability rights laws contain exemptions in their coverage. Title I of the 

ADA applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Title III of the ADA does 

not apply to churches and other religious entities and certain private clubs. The 

Fair Housing Act does not apply to most individuals’ homes or private home construction. Similarly, the U.S. Constitution and Federal law recognize areas of 

private activity that are not governed by the laws of the United States. It is thus 

necessary and appropriate to include a reservation that limits coverage of the treaty 

and excludes those areas of private conduct that are protected by the U.S. Constitution. 

Similarly significant is the declaration that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is non-self-executing. This declaration ensures that the treaty 

itself does not give rise to individually enforceable rights and cannot be directly enforced in the U.S. courts. It ensures the primacy of U.S. domestic law and remedies 

on disability issues. 

In the last several weeks, the treaty has been criticized for undermining U.S. sovereignty and for harming the rights of parents of children with disabilities. These 

concerns can be fully addressed by the terms of the treaty, by the RUDs proposed 

by the administration, and by the clarifications contained in the Secretary’s report. 

Some have raised alarms over the existence of the Disabilities Committee created 

by the treaty. This committee, a group of 18 experts elected by the nation’s that 

have ratified the treaty, meets twice each year to review the reports submitted by 

those countries that have ratified the treaty. By the terms of the treaty itself this 

committee is advisory only. The committee is authorized only to respond to reports 

with ‘‘suggestions and general recommendations.’’ The committee’s suggestions, observations, and opinions are not binding and cannot compel any action in the United 

States. 

The criticism that the treaty will undermine parental decisionmaking is misplaced. In fact, the treaty places great value on the role of the family. The Preamble 

to the treaty is particularly eloquent on this issue. It states: ‘‘(T)he family is the 

natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State, and that persons with disabilities and their family members 

should receive the necessary protection and assistance to enable families to contribute toward the full and equal enjoyment of the rights of persons with disabilities.’’ 

The treaty specifically requires ratifying nations to provide early and comprehensive information, services, and support to children with disabilities and their families. It seeks to maintain the sanctity of the family unit by requiring that children 

should not be separated from their parents on the basis of the disability of either 

the parents or the children. 

Most importantly, the overarching requirement of Article 23 of the treaty is one 

of nondiscrimination. The Convention, like Title II of the ADA, prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in matters of family and parenthood. Further, 

the proposed reservation on federalism ensures that parental responsibility and authority, which are matters of State and local law, will remain governed by domestic 

law in the United States. Also, the reservation on private conduct ensures that priVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
77 

vacy in family matters, which is protected by the U.S. Constitution, will not be encumbered by the treaty. The Secretary’s report specifically addresses family rights 

in its discussion of Article 23 (at p. 53) and notes that freedom from governmental 

interference in certain private conduct is among the fundamental values of our free 

and democratic society. 

One other concern that has been raised warns of a threat of a national registry 

of children with disabilities. The treaty does not require a national registry of births 

in the United States. Birth registration is handled by the States, which are subject 

to the disability nondiscrimination requirements of Title II of the ADA and Section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act. State laws on birth registration require that each 

child be given a birth certificate at birth—thus they are recognized as a person, protected by law. The treaty does not require a separate registration of children with 

disabilities, something the United States has consistently refused to support. Therefore, the treaty will not result in any change in U.S. or State law or practice. However, the treaty will provide much-needed protection in other countries where there 

is no provision for birth certificates or birth registration for children with disabilities. In particular, it will help protect against the horrible practice of infanticide 

of children born with disabilities (a practice that can be facilitated through the denial of birth certificates or registration to disabled babies), and it will require equal 

access to immunizations, education, food, and other essential needs for these 

children. 

These reservations are eminently reasonable and are compatible with the object 

and purpose of the treaty. And once included in the Senate Resolution of Advice and 

Consent, these reservations become the law. While other ratifying nations may seek 

to object to a reservation, no nation nor any international body has the ability or 

power to sever, amend, or overturn such a reservation. 

One other issue that has raised concerns about the Disabilities Convention is how 

it may apply to the issue of family planning and abortion. The treaty affirms the 

inherent right to life and recognizes the ‘‘dignity and worth’’ of persons with disabilities. It establishes for the first time internationally that ratifying nations cannot 

discriminatorily deny health care, health services, or food and fluids on the basis 

of disability. During the debate at the Ad Hoc Committee of the U.N., the treaty 

chairman, Ambassador Don McKay of New Zealand, stated that the treaty does not 

create a right to abortion. The Secretary’s report confirms this interpretation at p. 

61 and makes clear that Article 25 does not address the matter of abortion and does 

not affect United States law with regard to abortion. 

III. BENEFITS OF RATIFICATION

So why ratify? I strongly believe that ratification of the Disabilities Convention 

is in the best interests of the United States, provides protections for Americans with 

disabilities, and promotes U.S. business interests. 

Our failure to ratify the Disabilities Convention, which so clearly follows the pattern of disability rights laws and programs pioneered in the United States, has 

hampered the position of the United States as a world leader on disability rights 

issues. While the ADA will continue to be the linchpin of U.S. domestic nondiscrimination policy, the international community uses the treaty as the basis for 

legal and policy approaches to disability policy. Ratification will enable the United 

States to have an official place at the table and share our experience with other ratifying nations as they shape emerging disability rights policies and laws in their 

countries. It will enable us to seek a place on the Disabilities Committee (which is 

only open to experts from countries that have ratified) and focus the efforts of the 

committee on fundamental and important issues. 

Ratification will also allow the United States to take a more proactive role in the 

protection of U.S citizens abroad. Persons with disabilities, including our veterans, 

now work, study, travel, serve, and retire across the world. But our citizens still face 

limited opportunities and architectural barriers. An active U.S presence on implementation of the Disabilities Convention will help ensure that our citizens and 

servicemembers will encounter fewer architectural barriers and a more welcoming 

environment. 

Ratification of the treaty will also help U.S. businesses take advantage of the potential benefits of the treaty. Estimates of the number of persons with disabilities 

across the world now reach 1 billion persons. As these persons receive opportunities 

in their countries, they will need accessible devices, from wheelchairs and other mobility aids and services to new technologies, including smart phones and accessible 

software for their computers. Many of these products are engineered, made, or sold 

by U.S. corporations, who will benefit from an active U.S. presence to reach this 

emerging new source of revenue. 

78 

Ratification and the concomitant reemergence of U.S. leadership will also help 

American multinational corporations level the playing field. For the past 22 years 

American companies have followed a number of domestic requirements, including 

reasonable accommodation for their workers and accessible facilities for their customers. Unfortunately, their foreign counterparts did not have to follow such a regimen. Ratification of the Convention will enable the U.S. more actively to ensure 

that other nations that have ratified the Convention actually take the steps to enforce the treaty’s accessibility and employment provisions and provide a level playing field for American companies. 

Additionally, ratification and an active American presence can result in economies 

of scale for U.S. companies. Many U.S. multinational companies, including quick 

service restaurants and hotel chains, create and implement standard design plans 

for their U.S. facilities, but face different requirements for their building in other 

countries. Ratification will enable the United States to push for consistent accessible 

standards for buildings and create the ability for U.S. multinational companies to 

follow one template for their accessibility requirements worldwide, resulting in cost 

savings. 

Ratification of the Convention presents an opportunity for the Senate and the 

President to reaffirm the traditional American values of the treaty, nondiscrimination and equality of opportunity, and provides a forum to advance these values 

worldwide. The package of RUDs sent forward by the administration and the specific interpretations found in the Secretary’s report address the concerns that have 

been identified by outside observers regarding safeguarding American sovereignty 

and U.S. law. 

The Disabilities Convention has been ratified by 115 nations. The time for Senate 

action to ratify this treaty is now. When he signed the ADA on July 26, 1990, President George H.W. Bush said: ‘‘Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.’’ The words and concepts that he signed into law are now in the laws 

and constitutions of countries around the world and form the basis for the Disabilities Convention. It is time for the United States to reposition itself as a world 

leader to help bring down these walls of exclusion for all nations around the globe 

and help make the world accessible for Americans with disabilities, including our 

veterans, and for American multinational businesses. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Wodatch. 

Dr. Farris. Dr. Farris. Forgive me. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL FARRIS, CHANCELLOR, PATRICK 

HENRY COLLEGE, PURCELLVILLE, VA 

Dr. FARRIS. Oh, that is OK. Thank you for the honor of being invited to testify before this committee. 

I would ask that my full remarks be submitted for the record. 

Senator COONS. Without objection. 

Dr. FARRIS. I am the chancellor of Patrick Henry College, where 

I teach constitutional law. And recently, after finishing an LLM in 

public international law with the University of London, I started 

teaching public international law as well. 

There is no doubt about the appropriateness of the aspirations of 

this treaty. My mother has multiple sclerosis, has been in a wheelchair on a growing basis for about 40 years. I have pushed her 

around buildings here in this city and in France, Switzerland, and 

Austria, and there is no doubt on a practical level about the United 

States leadership on the access for persons with disabilities. 

But the question is whether or not a treaty is being fairly examined as a treaty here today, as opposed to an aspirational statement. This is not like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 

which was an aspirational statement by the U.N. in the 1940s. 

This is a binding treaty. 

We don’t have to worry necessarily about this committee forcing 

American law to change. We ought to worry about Americans forcing us to comply with the terms of the treaty because when we ratVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
79 

ify a treaty, we undertake a binding legal obligation to live up to 

its terms. 

The thing that the United States should lead on in this area is 

we ought to be the leading nation in the world in compliance with 

treaties—fully, fairly, completely. And if we don’t intend to comply 

with a treaty in full, we ought not to ratify it in the first place. If 

all we are going to do is king’s X and say the only thing we are 

going to do with this treaty is follow existing law, we are doing 

what Professor Henkin, who is one of the leading experts in the 

world on this subject, has said. 

And I quote, ‘‘Reservations designed to reject any obligation to 

rise above existing law and practice are of dubious propriety. If 

states generally entered such reservations, the Convention would 

be futile.’’ 

In fact, one nation has entered a reservation to this treaty that 

says exactly that. The Islamic Republic of Iran declares that it does 

not consider itself bound by any provisions of the Convention which 

may be incompatible with its applicable rules. 

Eight nations in the world have objected to that reservation— 

Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Latvia, Mexico, and Portugal—precisely because that approach to treaty laws, 

‘‘we are only going to obey what we want to obey,’’ is incompatible 

with the object and purposes of the treaty. 

Contrary to what the person from the Department of Justice 

said, Article 7 will, in fact, require a change of our law if we are 

going to live up to the treaty. If we don’t have any intention of living up to a treaty, let us just put a reservation in and say we don’t 

have any intention of changing any of our laws. 

We have no such reservation, and until we do, we have to look 

and see what the treaty says and what do the words mean. Article 

7 changes the law, and we would have a duty to amend the IDEA 

to live up to its standards. 

And that means today under the IDEA, parents have the final 

say for their kids, not the Government. Under Article 7 of this treaty, the Government has the final say for kids. 

The reason the IDEA works to protect children is because the 

Government that is often stingy and stubborn and slow in complying with the needs of special needs kids is because they know 

they have got parents with real rights coming after them. 

And if they don’t like what—the parents don’t like what the Government is suggesting, the parents have real authority. Article 7 

robs them of their real authority. Again, unless we are just simply 

going to cross our fingers and say king’s X, we really don’t mean 

what the words of this treaty says. 

Article 7, clearly, it is not a nondiscrimination provision, as 

claimed by the person from the Department of Justice. That is just 

simply not what it says. We ought to read the language of Article 

7. It requires the best interests of the child standard to be implemented in every decision. What that means is the Government, 

rather than parents, get to decide what is best for children. 

And if we think that that is good for children with special needs 

and disabilities in this country, we don’t understand what is appropriate for American children. We need parents as the empowered 

advocates, and this treaty will take away that empowerment. 

80 

Nothing is going to happen in any other country until those 

countries’ domestic law incorporates the aspirations of this treaty. 

Treaties do not build wheelchair ramps. They won’t help any American traveling. What will help those Americans is when those other 

nations implement the provisions in their domestic law and practice. 

Until that happens, this is all a very expensive and very dangerous exercise in celebrating our aspirations. We will not do anything of substance, and we will do dangerous things instead. 

Thank you, Your Honor. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Farris follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL FARRIS

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the honor of being invited to testify before this 

committee. 

My name is Michael Farris. I am the Chancellor of Patrick Henry College where 

I teach Constitutional Law, Public International Law, and coach our six-time national champion moot court team. I earned my Juris Doctorate from Gonzaga University back in 1976 and my LL.M. in Public International Law just last year from 

the University of London. I am also the Chairman and Founder of the Home School 

Legal Defense Association—the largest homeschooling advocacy group in the world. 

There are three categories of arguments that I bring in support of the view that 

the United States Senate should not ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of 

Persons With Disabilities. 

1. The promises made by the supporters of the treaty concerning the impact both 

on Americans and on disabled persons in other countries are clearly false and callously misleading. 

2. The changes to American law that will be required to comply with the provisions of this treaty are profound and utterly unacceptable. Specifically, the changes 

regarding the rights of parents who have children with disabilities—which includes 

thousands of homeschooling families—are absolutely inconsistent with the IDEA 

and the basic constitutional principles of parental rights. 

3. The ratification of this treaty would constitute the most dangerous departure 

from the principles of American sovereignty and personal liberty in the history of 

the United States Senate. 

THE PROPONENTS OF THIS TREATY MAKE FALSE AND MISLEADING PROMISES

The advocates of this U.N. treaty promise two kinds of alluring benefits that will 

supposedly result from Senate ratification. First, it will help disabled Americans 

traveling abroad. Second, it will give the United States greater moral authority to 

coax unwilling states into appropriate treatment of disabled persons within such 

states. 

Neither of these claims have any foundation in law or in fact. 

Let me explain why I take these false and misleading claims quite personally. 

My mother has had multiple sclerosis for over 40 years. I have had the honor of 

pushing my mother’s wheel chair through the Halls of Congress as well as through 

museums, castles, and cathedrals in Switzerland, Austria, and France. There is no 

doubt that the United States leads the whole world in providing appropriate access 

to persons with disabilities. 

We lead—not because international law has required us to do so—rather; we lead 

because in the United States we believe that every single person is endowed by our 

Creator with certain inalienable rights. And it is that belief system, and not international law, which will continue to provide Americans with disabilities with any 

necessary changes to the law in the years ahead. 

I deeply resent the attempt by the advocates of this treaty to mislead members 

of the disabled community with the false promise that the U.S. ratification of this 

treaty will lead to material improvements when Americans with disabilities travel 

to other nations. 

U.S. ratification of this treaty creates absolutely no rights for Americans with disabilities when they travel abroad. It is an utterly false contention. If the United 

States becomes party to a treaty, all of the legal consequences which flow from this 

act of ratification will be limited to the territory of the United States. There are no 

extraterritorial rights created for American travelers, businessmen, servicemembers, 

or veterans. 

81 

This is the nature of this kind of treaty. See, Article 29, Vienna Convention on 

the Law of Treaties. It is a promise from the state party to change its own laws 

and practices so that disabled persons will have greater access and equality. 

If an American were traveling in Portugal, for example, he or she would receive 

no claim whatsoever to improved access from Portugal by virtue of American ratification of this treaty. Portugal’s obligation to disabled persons arises from Portugal’s 

own ratification of this treaty—assuming that it lives up to its obligation to enact 

compliant domestic law. 

It is equally disingenuous to claim that U.S. ratification will lead to improved 

treatment for disabled persons from other countries. This is especially true in light 

of the package of reservations that the State Department proposes. 

The proponents of this treaty, together with the proposed reservations, are attempting to lead the Senate to believe that the United States is already fully compliant with this Convention. Professor Louis Henkin writing in the American Journal of International Law criticizes this approach: 

Reservations designed to reject any obligation to rise above existing law 

and practice are of dubious propriety: if states generally entered such reservations, the Convention would be futile. The object and purpose of the 

human rights conventions, it would seem, are to promote respect for human 

rights by having countries—mutually—assume legal obligations to respect 

and ensure recognized rights in accordance with international standards. 

Even friends of the United States have objected that its reservations are 

incompatible with that object and purpose and are therefore invalid. 

. . . By adhering to human rights conventions subject to these reservations, the United States, it is charged, is pretending to assume international obligations but in fact is undertaking nothing.1

In light of this approach, the United States will not be sending any kind of signal 

worth sending. The message will not be that other nations need to match our comprehensive package of state and federal laws concerning the proper treatment of disabled persons. Rather, the message will be that treaties are for show and have no 

more impact than you want them to have. 

The United States should lead the world in only ratifying treaties with which we 

intend to fully, faithfully, and vigorously comply. We should not lead the world in 

cheap and compromised promises. 

The fact that no sensible person would dare to suggest that we ratify this treaty 

without this class of reservations is proof that this treaty is simply too dangerous 

to ratify. 

The way for the United States to continue to lead the world in this area is to ensure that American law and practice live up to the promises of the Declaration of 

Independence rather than the amorphous standards of a committee of 18 experts 

in Geneva. 

International law that is not translated into domestic law and practice is nearly 

worthless. 

If International Law actually led to greater rights for the citizens of other nations, 

then why are North Koreans still deprived of any semblance of any human right? 

That nation has ratified five major human rights treaties and enforces none of 

them. 

Why do Germany and Sweden ban homeschooling and persecute and harass 

homeschooling parents despite their ratification of human rights treaties which 

promise that the rights of parents to choose alternatives to public education are 

prior to the claims of the state? 

How has American leadership and example in ratifying human rights instruments 

led to any help for German or Swedish homeschoolers? In fact, this administration 

is seeking to deport a German homeschooling family that was awarded asylum by 

an administrative law judge. What has America done of any substance to help those 

in the concentration camps of North Korea? 

Leadership comes not from ratification of treaties—it comes from effective action. 

Human rights treaties are empty promises that do little more than guarantee the 

right of a professional class of international bureaucrats to full employment and 

their right to travel to conferences where they shake their heads and ultimately 

write a report in diplomatic code that does little good for anyone at all. 

U.S. ratification of this treaty has no extraterritorial application for our citizens 

whatsoever. It is a fraudulent charade to claim otherwise. 

82 

THIS TREATY REQUIRES RADICAL CHANGES TO AMERICAN LAW

The most basic rule of international law is pacta sunt servanda—agreements 

must be kept. Ratification of the UNCRPD requires the United States to act in good 

faith—and to conform our law to the standards set forth in this U.N. treaty. 

The proposed declaration that this treaty is non-self-executing does not change 

this duty in any way. Such a declaration simply removes the possibility of direct 

judicial imposition of the provisions of the treaty. The United States has made a 

solemn promise that we will change our statutory law to conform to the requirements of the treaty. If we fail to do so, we are in breach of our international legal 

obligations. 

I want to focus on one area of the required changes in American law—the impact 

that the UNCRPD would have on the rights of parents concerning the education of 

their disabled and special needs children. 

The UNCRPD follows the trend of the second generation of human rights treaties 

which promote the idea that government, not parents, have the ultimate voice in 

decisions concerning their children. 

Early human rights instruments were very supportive of the rights of parents to 

direct the education and upbringing of their children. 

It is beyond dispute that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 

1948 by the unanimous vote of the U.N. General Assembly arose ‘‘out of the desire 

to respond forcefully to the evils perpetrated by Nazi Germany.’’ 2 The UDHR’s view 

regarding parents and children is no exception to this rule. Article 26(3) of the 

UDHR proclaims: ‘‘Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that 

shall be given to their children.’’ Numerous human rights instruments have been 

drafted in reaction to ‘‘the intrusion of the fascist state into the family. . . . ’’ 3

The rejection of the Nazi view of parents and children was translated from the 

aspirational articles of the UDHR into the binding provisions of the two core human 

rights treaties of our era—the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 

(1966) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights 

(1966). Article 18(4) of the ICCPR provides: 

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for 

the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the 

religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own 

convictions. 

Article 13(3) of the ICESCR repeats and expands on this same theme: 

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for 

the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to choose for 

their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid 

down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. 

This pro-parent view of human rights has given way to a decidedly different view 

in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and now in the U.N. 

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

The UNCRPD incorporates several key elements from the UNCRC that, as I will 

demonstrate, lead to the conclusion that parental rights in the education of disabled 

children are supplanted by a new theory of governmental oversight and superiority. 

In short, government agents, and not parents, are being given the authority to decide all educational and treatment issues for disabled children. All of the rights that 

parents have under both traditional American law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act will be undermined by this treaty. 

Article 7 is the key. Sections 2 and 3 directly parallel provisions of the UNCRC. 

2. In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests 

of the child shall be a primary consideration. 

3. States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have the 

right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, their views 

being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, on an 

equal basis with other children, and to be provided with disability and ageappropriate assistance to realize that right. 

Section 2 directly parallels Article 2(1) of the CRC. Section 3 closely follows Article 12(1) of the CRC. 

The ‘‘best interest of the child’’ standard is a familiar one to anyone who has ever 

participated in family or juvenile law in American courts. However, in that context 

it is a dispositional standard. This means that after a parent has been convicted 

83 

of abusing or neglecting their child, then and only then can the government substitute its view of what is best for the child or for that of the parent. Or in the divorce context, once a judge determines the family unit is broken, the judge must 

settle the contest between the competing parents and decide for herself what she 

thinks is in the best interest of the child. 

In an intact family, where there is no proof of abuse or neglect, government 

agents—whether school officials, social workers, or judges—cannot substitute their 

judgment of what is best for a child over the objection of the parents. 

This legal principle is firmly imbedded into the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Parents have a great deal of authority concerning the education and 

treatment of their children under this act. 

The National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities lists eight particular rights of parents contained in the IDEA4: 

The right of parents to receive a complete explanation of all the procedural safeguards available under IDEA and the procedures in the state for presenting 

complaints 

Confidentiality and the right of parents to inspect and review the educational 

records of their child 

The right of parents to participate in meetings related to the identification, 

evaluation, and placement of their child, and the provision of FAPE (a free appropriate public education) to their child 

The right of parents to obtain an independent educational evaluation (IEE) of 

their child 

The right of parents to receive ‘‘prior written notice’’ on matters relating to the 

identification, evaluation, or placement of their child, and the provision of FAPE 

to their child 

The right of parents to give or deny their consent before the school may take 

certain action with respect to their child 

The right of parents to disagree with decisions made by the school system on 

those issues 

The right of parents and schools to use IDEA’s mechanisms for resolving disputes, including the right to appeal determinations 

I have litigated an additional right of parents under the IDEA—the right to pursue private and home education at one’s own expense. 

For example, in the Eighth Circuit case of Fitzgerald v. Camdenton R–III School 

Dist., 439 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2006), the court reinforced important parental rights 

concepts. ‘‘[The IDEA allows parents to decline services and waive all benefits under 

the IDEA. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(D)(ii)(II). When parents waive their child’s 

right to services, school districts may not override their wishes. See id.’’ Id. at 775. 

In that case, we contended that parents did not even have to agree to allow the 

school district to force the child to go through the initial IDEA evaluation. The evidence showed that this homeschooling family had already had their child independently evaluated and the child was receiving private special needs services at the 

parents’ own expense. The school district wanted to force the family to undergo its 

special needs evaluation even though the school recognized that it could not force 

this family to accept the recommended services at the end of the process. 

The Eighth Circuit ruled for the family saying that the school could not compel 

this IDEA evaluation under these circumstances. 

All of these parental rights will be eviscerated by the mandatory application of 

the ‘‘best interest of the child’’ standard which is set forth in Article 7 of the 

UNCRPD. 

Geraldine van Bueren, who is one of the world’s leading experts on the international rights of the child and helped to draft the UNCRC (and was one of my professors at the University of London), clearly explains the meaning and application 

of this best interests standard in her course material. 

Best interests provides decision and policy makers with the authority to 

substitute their own decisions for either the child’s or the parents’, providing it is based on considerations of the best interests of the child.5

Section 7 of the UNCRPD uses the exact same legal terms as those contained in 

the UNCRC. 

Accordingly, today, under the IDEA parents get to decide what they think is best 

for their child—including the right to walk away from government services and proVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
84 

vide private or home education. Under the UNCRPD, that right is supplanted with 

the rule announced by Professor van Bueren. Government officials have the authority to substitute their views for the views of parents as well as the views of the child 

as to what is best. If parents think that private schools are best for their child, the 

UNCRPD gives the government the authority and the legal duty to override that 

judgment and keep the child in the government-approved program that the officials 

think is best for the child. 

Ask virtually any parent who has dealt with school officials in the IDEA context: 

Are you willing to give the government the final say on what it thinks is best for 

your child’s special needs or disability? 

School districts have a powerful motivation to do better for disabled and special 

needs children precisely because they know that parents with real rights are looking 

over their every move and have the ability to fight for what that parent knows to 

be best for their child. Remove parental authority and institutional lethargy will 

take over in many cases. 

Children are treated much, much better in the special needs setting whenever 

their parents have real and certain rights. 

Those rights are gone if this Senate ratifies this treaty. There are two reasons 

this is true. 

First, virtually every state has state law provisions which also give parents a 

number of rights in the educational setting. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution contains our Supremacy Clause which explicitly states that a ratified treaty is the 

Supreme Law of the land and all state law provisions which conflict with the treaty 

are overridden by the treaty. 

Any and all parental rights provisions in state education laws will be void by the 

direct application of Article 7 of this treaty. Government—not parents—has the authority to decide what is best for children. 

Second, we must analyze the impact of the ratification of this treaty based on the 

presumption that we are going to comply with the treaty in good faith. Accordingly, 

even with the presumption of the non-self-executing nature of the treaty, if the Senate ratifies this treaty, Congress will have the duty to revise the IDEA to comply 

with the provisions of the UNCRPD. Therefore, unless we intend to breach our 

international legal obligations, Congress will be required to modify the IDEA to ensure that government decisionmakers, and not parents, have the final say as to 

what they believe is best for a child. 

Thousands of homeschooling parents have children with special needs and disabilities. The ratification of this treaty is considered by our community to be the equivalent of an act of utter betrayal. 

As other parents of special needs children come to understand the meaning of 

these phrases in the UNCRPD, they too will be aghast to learn that this Senate 

is giving serious consideration to a legally binding international agreement that 

would undermine their rights as American parents. 

No proposed reservation can cure this problem. And unless we adopt a reservation 

that explicitly says: ‘‘We are not serious about any duty to comply with this treaty 

and are ratifying only for PR purposes’’—I can think of no means of drafting a reservation that cures this huge defect. 

Here is the plain fact. American law and international law are not compatible 

when it comes to parental rights. I can think of no good reason why we should even 

try. Americans should make the law for America—we do not need a committee of 

experts in Geneva to look over our shoulders to help us determine what kind of policy we need to best protect Americans with special needs and disabilities. 

Although there are a great number of other difficulties that are latent in this 

treaty, I want to focus just on one other issue. This treaty appears to take sides 

on the public policy issues concerning abortion. 

Article 25(a) of the UNCRPD requires state parties to: 

Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard 

of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided to other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based public health programmes; 

This provision has led the nations of Poland, Malta, and Monaco to adopt reservations or declarations that proclaim that these states do not recognize any right to 

an abortion or mandatory state-funding for the same. 

Under Roe v. Wade, of course, we live under a regime where it is proclaimed that 

women have the constitutional right to abortion. There is great controversy over 

that decision—and Congress has generally avoided federal funding for abortion. It 

would reasonably appear that Article 25(a) commits the United States to providing 

85 

free abortion services to persons with disabilities. A vote for this treaty is a vote 

for abortion funding. 

Of course, our State Department has not proposed anything like the reservations 

from Poland, Malta, or Monaco. And I doubt that the omission was a mere oversight. 

THIS TREATY WOULD VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLES OF

AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY AND LIBERTY

The Founders of this Republic understood treaties to be exclusively devoted to the 

subject matter of how nations treat other nations. The idea that international law 

would be used to dictate the policies that our Nation would follow concerning the 

rights of our own citizens would, frankly, astonish and bewilder the founding 

generation. 

In the most basic terms, American sovereignty means that Americans should 

make the law for America. No foreign power should have the ability to lay claim 

to a power to dictate what our internal domestic law should be. 

This treaty would alter that balance. I return to Professor van Bueren for an 

explanation of the impact on sovereignty by the ratification of this kind of treaty. 

Although her comments were directed toward the ratification of the UNCRC, they 

are fully applicable here. 

Underpinning this approach are the legal consequences of states becoming 

party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United Nations 

Convention on the Rights of the Child moves the borders for the state of 

what is political and what can be subject to a legal challenge in courts, particularly in resource allocation and budgetary matters. The Convention and 

other international laws in effect narrows what were previously unfettered 

discretionary powers of governments. Before governments become party to 

human rights treaty they are obliged to ensure that there are the resources, 

either to implement the Convention on becoming party or shortly thereafter, in accordance with international law. Hence, there is no interference 

with national sovereignty, the nationally sovereign decisions on how resources on children’s rights to be expended have already been taken. In essence, the government has exercised its political powers, and it has to live 

with the legal consequences.6

There is a once for all decision that effectively exhausts our sovereignty. If we ratify this treaty, our ability to have absolute freedom of choice concerning our public 

policy on this subject has been extinguished. It is akin to the States being under 

a Federal mandate. Sure, the States have a bit of discretion in how the Federal 

mandate will be implemented, but their range of policy choices are circumscribed 

by the duty to implement the will of Congress. In a similar fashion, if the Senate 

ratifies this treaty—the nationally sovereign decisions will be made once for all. 

Generations of Americans will be forced to live with this decision—under a permanent duty to live under U.N. supervision for compliance with our international legal 

obligations. 

There is a second, more specific problem with this particular treaty. 

Human rights treaties in general seek to guarantee five sectors of rights—political, civil, economic, social, and cultural rights. The Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights (which was a statement of altruism and not binding international law) encompassed all five of these components of international law. 

However, in the years that followed, there was a great division between two sectors of human rights. Political and civil rights are called negative rights. These 

rights are what government cannot do to us or take from us. The United States Bill 

of Rights is the world’s greatest collection of negative rights. 

However, economic, social, and cultural rights are called positive rights. These 

rights encompass services that the government must provide its citizens—the right 

to health care, the right to food, the right to employment. 

When the U.N. attempted to translate the UDHR into formal treaty language— 

this divide between civil and political rights vs. economic, social, and cultural rights 

took center stage. The west, led by the United States, supported the creation and 

ratification of civil and political rights. The Soviet Union and its allies, however, opposed civil and political rights and instead urged the creation of economic, social, 

and cultural rights. 

The attempt to create a single treaty encompassing all of the principles of the 

UDHR failed. Instead, the U.N. promulgated two separate treaties—the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on 

Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. 

86 

The United States ratified the ICCPR. The Soviet Union ratified the ICESCR. 

To this very day, the United States has never ratified a U.N. human rights treaty 

that has economic, social, and cultural rights at the core of the treaty. 

Why is this? Professor van Bueren explains: 

The essence of economic and social, and to an extent, cultural rights is 

that they involve redistribution, a task with which, despite the vision of 

human rights, most constitutional courts and regional and international tribunals are distinctively uncomfortable.7

Like these courts, the United States Senate—up until this present time—has 

shared this concern about committing our Nation to the task of redistribution. 

This treaty would break all precedent of this body. It would be the first time in 

the history of the Senate that the United States commits itself to a treaty that requires the redistribution of the resources of Americans. We must take resources 

from some Americans and give them to other Americans. 

There is little wonder that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics favored this 

kind of redistributive right. But, up until today, the United States Senate has never 

ratified a treaty embracing these so-called positive rights which are nothing more 

than the international entitlement to the redistribution of resources. 

You may call it what you will. I see such treaties as a dramatic loss of American 

freedom in favor of coercive international socialism. 

CONCLUSION

It was American self-government and not international law that led to the significant advancements that this nation has seen in the appropriate law and policies 

concerning persons with disabilities. 

International law has no track record of success that could lead any reasonable 

person to believe that international law would have any claim of superiority over 

American self-government. 

We should pass whatever laws we need to ensure proper policies and practices 

for Americans with disabilities. But we should not give away our policy prerogatives 

to the superintendence of a committee of UN experts sitting in Geneva. 

———————— 

End Notes 

1Louis Henkin, ‘‘U.S. Ratification of Human Rights Conventions: The Ghost of Senator Bricker,’’ The American Journal of International Law, Vol 89 No 2, 343–344 (Apr. 1995). 2Kathleen Renee Cronin-Furman, ‘‘60 Years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 

Towards an Individual Responsibility to Protect,’’ 25 Am. U. Int’l L. Rev. 175, 176 (2009). 3Marleen Eijkholt, ‘‘The Right to Found a Family as a Stillborn Right to Procreate?’’ 18 Med. 

L. Rev. 127, 134 (2010). 4http://nichcy.org/schoolage/parental-rights. 

5Geraldine Van Bueren, ‘‘International Rights of the Child, Section D,’’ University of London, 

46 (2006). 6Geraldine Van Bueren, ‘‘International Rights of the Child, Section D,’’ University of London, 

36 (2006). 7Geraldine Van Bueren, ‘‘Combating Child Poverty—Human Rights Approaches,’’ Human 

Rights Quarterly, Vol. 21, p. 680, 680–681 (1999). 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Dr. Farris. 

Mr. Groves. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN GROVES, BERNARD AND BARBARA 

LOMAS FELLOW, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. GROVES. Thank you, Senator Coons, Ranking Member Lugar, 

for giving me the opportunity to testify today regarding whether 

the United States should ratify the Convention on the Rights of 

Persons with Disabilities. 

I had the opportunity to testify before the committee about a 

month ago on another treaty, the U.N. Convention on the Law of 

the Sea. And while there are no similarities between the two in 

terms of scope or subject matter, the central question that we are 

dealing with here remains the same, and that is the question regarding the propriety of U.S. ratification. And that question is 

87 

whether membership in the Convention protects and preserves U.S. 

national interests. 

The Obama administration recognizes that ratification will not 

advance the rights of Americans with disabilities here in the 

United States. The President’s letter of transmittal makes it clear. 

It states that Americans with disabilities already enjoy the Convention’s rights at home. 

As such, ratifying the Convention merely makes an international 

commitment to continue the status quo here in the United States, 

which does not seem to be a compelling national interest since the 

rights of Americans with disabilities are well protected in the 

United States. Disabled Americans are protected by disability 

rights laws, such as the historic Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, and many more State and Federal 

laws. 

These laws are enforced in American courtrooms nationwide by 

a panoply of Federal agencies, led by the Civil Rights Division of 

the Department of Justice and by men and women who have dedicated their lives to the advancement of Americans with disabilities, 

men and women like Judy Heumann and John Wodatch. But U.S. 

membership in the Convention will not affect the rights or improve 

the conditions of Americans with disabilities. 

As such, this committee should question exactly what U.S. national interest would be met by ratifying because there are real 

costs associated with ratification of the Convention. Every 4 years, 

the United States Government will be required to produce a comprehensive report in an effort to prove its compliance with the provisions of the Convention. 

That report must be presented to the 18-member Committee on 

the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Geneva by a large team 

of U.S. officials. The actual cost of this reporting process is not insignificant. But more important are the potential political costs 

that come with ratification, and that is because the United States 

has endured mixed results, to say the least, in its interactions with 

other human rights treaty committees over the years for the treaties that we are a party to. 

For example, in 2008, the United States presented a 100-page report to a treaty committee regarding the U.S. record on implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial 

Discrimination. That committee gave short shrift to the U.S. report 

and instead adopted a damning appraisal of the U.S. record that 

was only tangentially related or utterly unrelated to issues regarding racial discrimination. 

Among some of the demands that that committee made, and you 

heard Senator DeMint refer to some of these earlier, are to ensure 

that enemy combatants held in Guantanamo Bay have the right to 

judicial review, to challenge the conditions of their detention, to 

prevent U.S. corporations from negatively affecting the rights of indigenous people living outside of the United States, to place a moratorium on the imposition of the death penalty, and to restore voting rights to all convicted felons, regardless of the heinousness of 

their crime. 

If the United States ratifies the disabilities Convention, it may 

be exposed to the same experience that it had with that committee. 

88 

That committee and other human rights treaty bodies, such as the 

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women 

and the Committee on the Rights of the Child, have established 

over the years a pattern of directing states parties to change their 

laws in ways that conflict with those states parties’ legal, social, 

and cultural norms. There is little reason to believe that the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities will act any differently. 

In conclusion, as with any other treaty, this committee should 

weigh the costs and benefits entailed with ratifying the disabilities 

Convention. Neither the United States nor Americans with disabilities will benefit from a quadrennial chastisement by a committee 

of international disability experts sitting in Geneva. 

Instead, the United States should continue to lead by the example it has set for protecting the rights of Americans with disabilities through comprehensive legislation and enforcement. 

Again, I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to testify, and I look forward to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Groves follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN GROVES

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify 

before you today regarding the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD or Convention). 

I had the opportunity to testify before this committee a month ago regarding U.S. 

accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. While there are 

no similarities between the two conventions in terms of scope or subject matter, the 

central question regarding the propriety of U.S. ratification remains the same— 

whether membership in the Convention protects, preserves, or advances U.S. national interests. 

The United States should not ratify the CRPD if membership would not advance 

U.S. national interests at home or abroad. The administration concedes that U.S. 

membership in the Convention would not advance the cause of persons with disabilities living in the United States since the United States already has in place comprehensive statutory, regulatory, and enforcement mechanisms regarding disability 

rights. 

The question remains whether membership in the Convention would advance national interests in the international sphere. Joining the Convention is unlikely to 

advance U.S. national interests abroad, but instead would obligate the United 

States to answer to a committee of ‘‘disability experts’’ in violation of principles of 

U.S. sovereignty. The United States need not become party to the Convention to 

demonstrate its strong commitment to disability rights to the international community. Nor is there any evidence that U.S. ratification would enhance the ability of 

the U.S. Government or nongovernmental organizations to promote disability rights 

in foreign countries. 

THE CONVENTION

On December 13, 2006, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the CRPD 

‘‘to promote, protect, and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights 

and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect 

for their inherent dignity.’’ 1

The terms of the Convention are meant to protect the rights of persons with disabilities in the civil, political, economic, social and cultural spheres. It recognizes 

traditional civil and political rights that are guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution—such as the right to life and liberty, equality before the law, and the freedom 

of expression and opinion2—alongside certain economic, social, and cultural ‘‘positive 

rights,’’ such as the right to education, health, and ‘‘an adequate standard of living 

for [persons with disabilities] and their families, including adequate food, clothing, 

and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.’’ 3

The Convention entered into force on May 3, 2008, after 20 nations had deposited 

their instruments of ratification. The Convention currently has 117 parties, and an 

additional 36 nations, including the United States, have signed but not ratified the 

89 

treaty.4 U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice signed the Convention 

on July 30, 2009.5 President Obama transmitted the Convention, an article-byarticle analysis, and a set of recommended reservations, declarations, and understandings to the Senate for its advice and consent on or about May 17, 2012 (Transmittal Package).6

If the Senate gives its advice and consent and the Convention is ratified, it would 

become the ‘‘Supreme Law of the Land’’ on par with Federal statutes, including statutes relating to disability rights.7 When the United States becomes party to a 

human rights treaty it obligates itself to the other treaty parties that it will comply 

with the terms of the treaty within U.S. territory. Therefore, the United States 

needs to take great care when deciding whether to ratify such a treaty when its 

terms—or the interpretation of those terms by a treaty committee—may not conform 

to existing State and Federal law or to prevalent American social, cultural, and economic norms. 

AMERICA’S LEADERSHIP ON DISABILITY RIGHTS

The United States should become party to a treaty only if it advances U.S. national interests. The U.S. should be especially wary of international conventions 

that require domestic enforcement by the Federal Government. U.S. national interests in the context of the Convention may be characterized in both foreign and domestic terms: Would becoming a party to the Convention serve U.S. interests within 

the international community or would joining advance the cause of Americans with 

disabilities? 

From a purely public diplomacy calculus, one can argue that the United States 

will enhance its reputation within the international community by holding itself to 

a high standard of human rights. However, in the case of the CRPD, the United 

States already has effective legislative measures in place to protect the rights of the 

disabled. Those who say that ratification would allow the United States to claim the 

moral high ground within the international community—at least in regard to disability rights—imply that the United States is deficient in protecting the rights of 

the disabled. In truth, the United States has been a leader in protecting the rights 

of the disabled. It already holds the moral high ground. Signing a treaty merely to 

‘‘score points’’ overseas is not a sound basis for making policy. 

Ratification of the CRPD is unnecessary to end discrimination against persons 

with disabilities in the United States. As is made clear throughout the Transmittal 

Package, the United States already has in place a wide range of Federal laws to 

protect and advance the cause of Americans with disabilities.8 Major pieces of legislation include the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,9 the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA),10 the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B,11 and the Fair 

Housing Act.12 Other Federal laws that protect persons with disabilities include the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, the Voting 

Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968.13

These Federal laws, unlike the broad provisions of the CRPD, were crafted to address the situation of disabled persons living in the United States, not to address 

the general opinions of the international community. As a whole, the legislation is 

a firm foundation that can be modified or expanded as necessary through the legislative or regulatory process. 

In addition, U.S. disabilities laws are enforced by a panoply of Federal agencies, 

most notably the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.14 Other elements of the Federal Government have responsibilities under the ADA and other 

Federal disability legislation. In addition to Federal law, all 50 States and the District of Columbia have enacted a wide range of laws to prevent discrimination 

against the disabled and provide an array of resources to persons with disabilities.15

In short, the U.S. Government treats disability discrimination in a comprehensive 

and exhaustive manner that makes membership in an international covenant purporting to set standards for the treatment of the disabled superfluous at best. To 

allow an international committee of disability experts to scrutinize the U.S. record 

every 4 years would yield little or no benefit in realizing disability rights for Americans. Any public diplomacy or other possible marginal benefits, if any, that could 

arise from ratifying the Convention should be weighed against the negative consequences of ratification. 

CEDING AUTHORITY TO AN INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE

To monitor implementation, human rights treaties usually establish a ‘‘committee 

of experts’’ to review reports from states parties on their compliance. States parties 

are required to submit periodic reports (usually every 4 years) to the committee deVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
90 

tailing their compliance with the particular treaty. The CRPD established the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee), which is 

charged with reviewing periodic reports and making ‘‘such suggestions and general 

recommendations on the report as it may consider appropriate.’’ 16

Since the Convention entered into force in May 2008, the CRPD Committee has 

conducted reviews of a small number of states parties and has issued final conclusions and recommendations regarding Tunisia, Spain, and Peru.17

Abuses by Treaty Committees. Human rights treaty committees have been known 

to make demands of states parties that fall well outside the scope of the subject 

matter of the treaty that conflict with the legal, social, economic, and cultural traditions and norms of states parties. This has especially been the case with the United 

States. 

For instance, in February 2008, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination reviewed the U.S. record on racial discrimination and issued a report 

directing the United States to change its policies on a series of political causes completely divorced from the issues of race and racial discrimination. Specifically, the 

committee urged the United States to guarantee effective judicial review to the foreign unlawful enemy combatants held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, 

prevent U.S. corporations from abusing the rights of indigenous populations in other 

countries, place a moratorium on the death penalty, restore voting rights to convicted felons, and other matters completely unrelated or only tangentially related 

to racial discrimination.18

The committees overseeing the enforcement of other human rights treaties to 

which the United States is not a party often recommend changes in policies that 

are outside of traditional American norms. For example, the committee that oversees the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against 

Women (CEDAW) regularly advocates that states decriminalize prostitution, expand 

access to abortion, devalue the role of women as mothers, reduce parental authority, 

and implement strict numerical gender quotas in the government and private sectors.19

The U.S. has reason to expect that the experts on the CRPD Committee will give 

short shrift to U.S. sovereignty, laws, regulations, and norms, and embark on similar forays in pursuit of a broader agenda of social engineering unrelated to disability 

rights. 

Defining the CRPD Committee’s Role. Any debate over U.S. ratification of the Convention should make it clear through reservations, understandings, and declarations 

that the CRPD Committee has no power—either through its recommendations or by 

the issuance of general comments—to provide authoritative or legally enforceable interpretations of the Convention. 

The administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush held that position regarding human rights treaty committees. For example, in 1994 the Human 

Rights Committee adopted a general comment which claimed that its ‘‘role under 

the [International] Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights] . . . necessarily entails 

interpreting the provisions of the Covenant and the development of a jurisprudence.’’ 20 The Clinton administration reacted strongly to this claim of authority by 

issuing a lengthy critique, which stated: 

[The Committee’s] rather surprising assertion . . . would be a rather significant departure from the Covenant scheme, which does not impose on 

States Parties an obligation to give effect to the Committee’s interpretations 

or confer on the Committee the power to render definitive or binding interpretations of the Covenant. The drafters of the Covenant could have given 

the committee this role but deliberately chose not to do so.21

The Bush administration similarly responded to a fact sheet titled ‘‘The Right to 

Health’’ produced by the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights 

and the World Health Organization. The fact sheet asserted that the general comments and recommendations adopted by human rights treaty committees ‘‘provide 

an authoritative and detailed interpretation of the provisions found in the treaties.’’ 22 The U.S. response was unequivocal: 

General comments and other documents issued by treaty monitoring bodies 

express the opinions of individuals acting in their expert capacities; such 

documents are not the result of deliberations among States. While the 

views of treaty monitoring bodies are entitled to respect and should be considered carefully by States Parties, they do not create legal obligations or 

‘‘requirements.’’ 23

This committee should be equally clear in reaffirming that the CRPD Committee 

has no authority to create new international norms or customary international law 

91 

that the states themselves have not deliberated and approved, particularly any that 

would arguably bind the U.S. domestically. Such a clarification would reinforce the 

traditional understanding of customary international law as the ‘‘law of nations’’ 

that ‘‘results from a general and consistent practice of states followed by them from 

a sense of legal obligation,’’ not from the recommendations of a treaty committee.24

It would also reaffirm U.S. sovereignty by demonstrating that the Federal Government will actively work to prevent the improper imposition of norms to which it has 

not given its democratic consent.25

The committee should also make clear that the CRPD Committee does not possess 

the authority to dictate the meaning of the Convention to states parties. Its interpretation of the terms of the Convention, the obligations it imposes, and any recommendations and general comments are entitled only to respect and consideration 

by the member states. The committee should serve a technical, administrative role 

as opposed to a substantive, adjudicatory, or quasi-lawmaking role. The United 

States, not a committee of international disability experts, retains the final authority to interpret the terms of the Convention and determine its international obligations. 

This committee has in the past proposed an understanding regarding the authority of a human rights expert committee. Specifically, a committee report in 2002 

proposed the following understanding as a condition to ratification of CEDAW: 

‘‘Accordingly, the United States understands that the Committee on the Elimination 

of Discrimination Against Women has no authority to compel actions by States 

Parties.’’ 26

NON-SELF-EXECUTION

U.S. ratification of the Convention would make it ‘‘the Supreme Law of the Land’’ 

under the supremacy clause of the Constitution.27 Although ratification would constitute a commitment under international law, the text of the Convention gives no 

indication that its drafters intended its provisions to be automatically enforceable 

under the domestic law of the states parties.28

Nevertheless, to protect against any assertion to the contrary and as recommended in the Transmittal Package, this committee should submit a declaration 

that the Convention is not self-executing, meaning that its provisions would not be 

enforceable in U.S. courts. Private causes of action or other new avenues of litigation would thus require passage of Federal legislation specifically implementing the 

Convention’s terms.29

‘‘Non-self-executing’’ declarations are common. In fact, the United States has entered such declarations as a condition for ratifying the three major human rights 

treaties to which it is a party: the International Covenant on Civil and Political 

Rights (ICCPR),30 the International Covenant on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD),31 and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman 

or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).32 The non-self-executing declaration 

has also been proposed as a condition for CEDAW ratification.33

Of course, the United States would be fully justified in entering such a declaration. Existing State and Federal legislation already provide private causes of action 

for the disabled in the United States, including for instances of discrimination in 

employment, public accommodations, transportation, telecommunications, housing 

and other areas.34

The Transmittal Package recommends the inclusion of a non-self-executing declaration, but for some reason includes a proviso that ‘‘it is not necessary that such 

Declaration be included in the instrument of ratification deposited by the President.’’ 35 Excluding the declaration would be a departure from U.S. past practice, as 

the non-self-execution declaration has been included in the U.S. instrument of ratification in connection with the ICCPR, ICERD, and CAT. 

‘‘REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH’’ 

For many years there has been a heated debate within the U.N. system regarding 

abortion ‘‘rights.’’ 36 Apparently unwilling to use the term ‘‘abortion’’ in the debate, 

the proponents of establishing abortion as a human right use phrases such as ‘‘reproductive rights’’ and ‘‘sexual and reproductive health’’ as euphemisms for ‘‘abortion rights.’’ The use of one such euphemism in the text of the Convention has extended the abortion debate into the realm of disability rights. Specifically, Article 

25 of the Convention requires states parties to ‘‘[p]rovide persons with disabilities 

with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided to other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based public health programmes.’’ 37

92 

Within the context of the debate over abortion rights, Article 25 of the Convention 

could be interpreted as ensuring that persons with disabilities are provided access 

to free or affordable abortions, assuming such access is provided to nondisabled persons by the state party. 

When the U.N. General Assembly approved the final text of the Convention on 

December 13, 2006, more than one dozen nations, including the United States, made 

official statements regarding their interpretation of the phrase ‘‘reproductive 

health.’’ 38 The pertinent part of the U.S. statement reads: 

In that regard, the United States understands that the phrase ‘‘reproductive health’’ in subparagraph (a) of article 25 of the draft Convention does 

not include abortion, and that its use in that article does not create any 

abortion rights and cannot be interpreted to constitute support, endorsement or promotion of abortion. We stated that understanding at the time 

of adoption of the Convention in the Ad Hoc Committee, and note that no 

other delegation suggested a different understanding of that term.39

However, that statement conflicts with the opinion of Secretary of State Hillary 

Clinton regarding the meaning of ‘‘reproductive health.’’ On April 22, 2009, Secretary Clinton testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, ‘‘We happen to 

think that family planning is an important part of women’s health, and reproductive 

health includes access to abortion, that I believe should be safe, legal, and rare.’’ 40

Due to this apparent conflict in the interpretation of ‘‘reproductive health,’’ this 

committee should clarify the nature of the Convention regarding that phrase and 

its relationship to abortion.41

Similar issues arose in this committee in 1994 and 2002 in the context of 

CEDAW. In these instances, Senators raised the question of whether abortion rights 

were to be inferred from certain language in CEDAW that related to ‘‘family planning.’’ This committee issued two reports (in 1994 and 2002) submitting understandings that the U.S. will ‘‘determine which health care services are appropriate 

in connection with family planning, pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period. . . .’’ Moreover, in the 2002 report the committee required as a condition to 

the Senate’s advice and consent an understanding explicitly stating that nothing in 

CEDAW ‘‘shall be construed to reflect or create any right to abortion and in no case 

should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.’’ 42

Abortion remains one of the most heated social issues being debated in the United 

States among activist groups, State and Federal legislatures, and courts at all levels, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Introducing an ‘‘international’’ opinion on the 

matter from a group of disability experts ensconced in Geneva is unlikely to resolve 

or advance the debate in the United States. 

DEFINING THE CONVENTION’S TERMS

It stands to reason that an international treaty designed to end discrimination on 

the basis of ‘‘disability’’ should provide a working definition of that term, yet the 

Convention provides none.43 In fact, the treaty clouds any legally workable definition of disability by stating in its opening paragraphs that ‘‘disability is an evolving 

concept.’’ 44 Such ambiguity invites abuse by persons or groups who do not suffer 

from a recognized medical disability, yet seek resources and protection under the 

authority of the Convention. This would also complicate implementation of the Convention in the United States, in which the definition of ‘‘disability’’ is still regularly 

contested by activists, litigants, and judges. 

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a person is considered disabled if he 

has ‘‘a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more . . . 

major life activities,’’ has ‘‘a record of such an impairment,’’ or has been ‘‘regarded 

as having such an impairment.’’ 45 Recent amendments to the ADA further clarified 

that definition by defining ‘‘major life activities’’ to include ‘‘caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, 

bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working’’ and ‘‘[m]ajor bodily functions.’’ 46

Absent a definition or an ‘‘evolving’’ definition, ratification may result in conflict 

between U.S. law and the Convention. The administration has recognized the potential for conflict between the definitions (or lack thereof) of ‘‘disability’’ and ‘‘persons 

with disabilities’’ and has recommended an understanding to address the issue.47

But that understanding falls short. To ensure that the United States is not seen 

to consent to other key definitions the understanding should be broadened to include 

the terms ‘‘discrimination based on disability,’’ ‘‘reasonable accommodation,’’ and 

‘‘major life activity.’’ The CRPD Committee may interpret these terms differently 

than Congress or U.S. courts would interpret them. For instance, a committee of 

93 

experts recently questioned the United States on whether the definition of ‘‘racial 

discrimination’’ under U.S. law comported with the terms of the ICERD.48

The United States has similarly qualified terminology in previous treaties. For 

example, when the United States ratified the United Nations Convention Against 

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, it entered an understanding that substituted its own definition of ‘‘torture,’’ which differed from the Convention’s definition.49 The United States also entered a reservation that limited the treaty’s definition of ‘‘cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment 

or punishment’’ to prohibit only those acts considered cruel, inhuman, or degrading 

treatment or punishment under the U.S. Constitution.50

U.S. membership in the Convention would produce, at best, an intangible, incalculable, and marginal public diplomacy benefit in the international community. The 

United States need not become party to the Convention to demonstrate its commitment to the rights of persons with disabilities or to advance the cause of the disabled in other nations. Any nation that questions U.S. dedication to protecting 

Americans with disabilities need only review the architecture of State and Federal 

laws and the network of State and Federal agencies that enforce those laws. 

On the domestic front, persons with disabilities in the United States would be better served by a continual review of the implementation of existing State and Federal 

laws. The U.S. Congress, American civil society, and special interest groups are far 

better positioned to conduct such reviews than a committee of disability experts 

from Bangladesh, China, Qatar, and Tunisia, which are current members of the 

CRPD Committee. 

In addition to the reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) included 

in the President’s Transmittal Package, this committee should include additional 

RUDs in its resolution of advice and consent to ratification. At a minimum, the following RUDs should be made: 

• Definitions. The Transmittal Package recommends an understanding in regard 

to the definition of ‘‘disability’’ and ‘‘persons with disabilities,’’ but there are several other crucial definitions, including some that are defined by the Convention, that should be addressed. An understanding along the following general 

lines would make clear that the United States is not obligated to accept the 

CRPD Committee’s interpretation of these terms: 

The United States would consider itself bound by the obligations of the Convention only insofar as the terms ‘‘disability,’’ ‘‘persons with disabilities,’’ ‘‘discrimination based on disability,’’ ‘‘reasonable accommodation,’’ and ‘‘major life 

activity’’ are defined coextensively with the definitions of such terms pursuant to 

the relevant laws in the United States. 

• The Authority of the CRPD Committee. An understanding along the following 

general lines would make clear that the United States considers the role of the 

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to be technical and advisory, as opposed to authoritative or adjudicatory: 

The United States understands that the Committee on the Rights of Persons 

with Disabilities has no authority to compel actions by states parties, and the 

United States does not consider conclusions, recommendations, or general comments issued by the committee as constituting customary international law or legally binding on it in any manner. 

• ‘‘Reproductive Health.’’ To remain consistent with the U.S. understanding of the 

term ‘‘reproductive health’’ at the time that the Convention was adopted in 

2006, an understanding along the following lines should be included in the resolution of advice and consent: 

The United States understands that the phrase ‘‘sexual and reproductive 

health’’ in Article 25(a) of the Convention does not include abortion, and its use 

in that Article does not create any abortion rights, and cannot be interpreted to 

constitute support, endorsement, or promotion of abortion, and in no case should 

abortion be promoted as a method of family planning. 

These RUDs, in addition to those recommended in the Transmittal Package, could 

limit, although not eliminate, the danger that the Convention would pose to U.S. 

law and American sovereignty. Regardless, even with the inclusion of the aforementioned RUDs, U.S. ratification will not advance its national interests. Nor will it advance the cause of Americans with disabilities. 

Current U.S. law meets or exceeds the provisions of the Convention, and mere 

membership in the Convention will not convince the international community that 

America protects the rights of its disabled citizens. Moreover, ratification of the Convention may harm U.S. national interests because human rights treaty committees 

94 

increasingly view themselves as the legislators of binding international norms, instead of as experts fulfilling the technical roles they were intended to perform. 

———————— 

End Notes 

1 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, art. 1. 

2 Ibid., arts. 10, 12, 14, and 21. 

3 Ibid., arts. 24, 25, and 28. 

4 U.N. Office of Legal Affairs, Treaty Section, ‘‘Status: Convention on the Rights of Persons 

with Disabilities,’’ United Nations Treaty Collection,’’ at http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails. 

aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsglno=IV-15&chapter=4&lang=en (July 10, 2012). 5 Edith M. Lederer, ‘‘US Signs Disabled Rights Treaty,’’ ABC News, July 30, 2009, at http:// 

abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=8215921 (April 15, 2010). 6Message from the President of the United States transmitting the Convention on the Rights 

of Persons with Disabilities, 112th Cong., 2d Sess., Treaty Doc. 112–7, May 17, 2012, at http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-112tdoc7/pdf/CDOC-112tdoc7.pdf (July 10, 2012). 7 U.S. Constitution, art. VI, cl. 2. 

8Transmittal Package, Tab 1–2, pp. 83–93. 

9 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. 

10 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., later amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Public Law 

110–325 (enacted on September 25, 2008). 11 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, the predecessor 

legislation to IDEA, was enacted in 1975. 12 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. 13 42 U.S.C. §§ 255, 251(a)(2); 49 U.S.C. § 41.705; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973ee et seq.; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997 

et seq.; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4151 et seq. See also U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, ‘‘A Guide to Disability Rights Laws,’’ September 2005, at http:// 

www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor64984 (April 15, 2010). 14 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, ‘‘Disability Rights Section Home Page,’’ 

at http://www.justice.gov/crt/drs/drshome.php (April 15, 2010). See also Americans with Disabilities Act, ‘‘ADA Home Page,’’ at http://www.ada.gov (April 15, 2010). 15For example, see Cancer Legal Line, ‘‘State Disability Discrimination Laws,’’http:// 

www.marrow.org/PATIENT/SupportlResources/PatientlTeleconferen/PDFs/Aug.6.08.HandoutStatelDisabilitylLaws.pdf (April 15, 2010); Disability.gov, ‘‘Information by State,’’ at http:// 

www.disability.gov/state/index (April 15, 2010). 16 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, art. 36(1). 17 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ‘‘Concluding observations,’’ Tunisia, 

CRPD/C/TUN/CO/1, May 13, 2011, at http://www2.ohchr.org//SPdocs/CRPD/5thsession/CRPD-CTUN-CO-1len.doc (July 10, 2012); Spain, CRPD/C/ESP/CO/1, October 19, 2011, at http:// 

www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CRPD/6thsession/CRPD.C.ESP.CO.1len.doc (July 10, 

2012); Peru, CRPD/C/PER/CO/1, May 9, 2012, at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/ 

CRPD/7thsession/CRPD.C.PER.CO.1-ENG.doc (July 10, 2012). The Committee may have completed reports on Argentina, China, and Hungary, but if so the reports are not yet available 

online. 18Steven Groves, ‘‘The Inequities of the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,’’ Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2168, August 7, 2008, at http:// 

www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg2168.cfm. See also Committee on the 

Elimination of Racial Discrimination, ‘‘Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: United States of America,’’ CERD/C/USA/CO/6, February 2008, 

at http://www.universalhumanrightsindex.org/documents/824/1310/document/en/text.html (April 

15, 2010). 19Patrick F. Fagan, ‘‘How U.N. Conventions on Women’s and Children’s Rights Undermine 

Family, Religion, and Sovereignty,’’ Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1407, February 5, 

2001, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2001/02/How-UN-Conventions-On-Womens; 

Grace Melton, ‘‘CEDAW: How U.N. Interference Threatens the Rights of American Women,’’ 

Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2227, January 9, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/ 

Research/Reports/2009/01/CEDAW-How-UN-Interference-Threatens-the-Rights-of-AmericanWomen; and Wendy Wright, ‘‘CEDAW Committee Rulings,’’ Concerned Women for America, 

August 27, 2002, at http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1870 (April 15, 2010). 20 U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘‘General Comment No. 24: Issues 

Relating to Reservations Made upon Ratification or Accession to the Covenant or the Optional 

Protocols Thereto, or in Relation to Declarations Under Article 41 of the Covenant,’’ CCPR/C/ 

21/Rev.1/Add.6, November 4, 1994, at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/69c55b086f 

72957ec12563ed004ecf7a (April 15, 2010). 21Observations by the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom on Human 

Rights Committee General Comment No. 24 (52) relating to reservations, U.N. document A/50/ 

40, p. 1, March 28, 1995, at http://www.iilj.org/courses/documents/USandUKResponses.pdf (April 

15, 2010). 22Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and World Health Organization, 

‘‘The Right to Health,’’ Fact Sheet No. 31, June 2008, p. 10, at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ 

Publications/Factsheet31.pdf (April 16, 2010). 23 U.S. Department of State, ‘‘Observations by the United States of America on ‘The Right to 

Health, Fact Sheet No. 31,’ ’’ October 15, 2008, at http://www.globalgovernancewatch.org/docLib/ 

20081222lHealthlUSGlPaper.pdf (April 16, 2010). 

95 

24 Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 102(2) (1987), and 

Curtis A. Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith, Foreign Relations Law, 2nd ed. (New York: Aspen 

Publishers, 2006). 25For a critique of the ‘‘modern position’’ that customary international law is applicable or 

enforceable within the United States, see Curtis A. Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith, ‘‘Customary 

International Law as Federal Common Law: A Critique of the Modern Position,’’ Harvard Law 

Review, Vol. 110, No. 4 (February 1997), p. 815. 26 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Senate Exec. 

Rept. 107–9, 107th Cong., 2d Sess., September 6, 2002, p. 13. Citing a July 8, 2002, letter from 

Secretary of State Colin Powell, the report stated, ‘‘State Parties have always retained the discretion on whether to implement any recommendations made by the Committee.’’ 27 ‘‘This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance 

thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United 

States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound 

thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.’’ 

U.S. Constitution, art. VI, cl. 2. 28 ‘‘This Court has long recognized the distinction between treaties that automatically have effect as domestic law, and those that—while they constitute international law commitments— 

do not by themselves function as binding federal law.’’ Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 504 

(2008). 29 ‘‘International agreements, even those directly benefiting private persons, generally do not 

create private rights or provide for a private cause of action in domestic courts.’’ 2 Restatement 

(Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 907, Comment a, p. 395 (1986). 30 ‘‘That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing.’’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, December 

16, 1966, in United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 999, p. 171 and Vol. 1057, p. 407, ‘‘Declarations 

and Reservations,’’ United States, Declaration (1), at http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails. 

aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsglno=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en (April 16, 2010). 31 ‘‘That the United States declares that the provisions of the Convention are not self-executing.’’ International Covenant on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Declarations and 

Reservations, United States, III, at http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY& 

mtdsglno=IV-2&chapter=4&lang=en#EndDec (April 19, 2010). 32 ‘‘That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing.’’ Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10 December 1984, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 

1465, p. 85, ‘‘Declarations and Reservations,’’ United States, III, at http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ 

ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsglno=IV-9&chapter=4&lang=en (April 19, 2010). 33 ‘‘The United States declares that, for purposes of its domestic law, the provisions of the Convention are non-self-executing.’’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination 

Against Women, Senate Exec. Rept. 107–9, p. 13, September 6, 2002. 34 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.; Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794; and ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Public Law 110–325. 35Transmittal Package, p. 82. 36See Douglas Sylva and Susan Yoshihara, ‘‘Rights by Stealth: The Role of UN Human Rights 

Treaty Bodies in the Campaign for an International Right to Abortion,’’ International Organizations Research Group White Paper No 8, reprinted 2009, at http://www.c-fam.org/docLib/ 

20100126lIORGlWlPaperlNumber8FINAL.pdf (April 16, 2010). 37 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, art. 25(a) (emphasis added). 38See Susan Yoshihara, ‘‘UN Adopts Disabilities Treaty, Many States Reiterate Rejection of 

Abortion,’’ Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute Friday Fax, December 14, 2006, at http:// 

www.c-fam.org/publications/id.492/publdetail.asp (April 16, 2010). 39 U.N. General Assembly, 61st Session, 76th plenary meeting, U.N. Doc. A/61/PV.76, December 13, 2006, p. 7 (July 10, 2012). 40 Hearing, New Beginnings: Foreign Policy Priorities in the Obama Administration, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., April 22, 2009, 

at http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/schedule.asp?showdate=4/22/2009&adj=4/22/2009 (emphasis 

added) (April 16, 2010). 41 Article 10 of CRPD, titled ‘‘Right to life,’’ requires that ‘‘States Parties reaffirm that every 

human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its 

effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.’’ This provision 

is seemingly inconsistent with an interpretation of ‘‘reproductive health’’ that requires access to 

abortion. 42 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Senate Exec. 

Rept. 103–38, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., October 3, 1994, and Convention on the Elimination of All 

Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Senate Exec. Rept. 107–9. 43There is no definition of ‘‘disability’’ in the operative definition section of the Convention 

(Article 2 ‘‘Definitions’’). The failure to reach consensus on the definition of ‘‘disability’’ was the 

result of a dispute concerning whether the term ‘‘disability’’ should be a medical concept or a 

social concept. Language describing disability as an ‘‘evolving concept’’ certainly leans toward 

a more social definition. See Susan Yoshihara, ‘‘The Quest for Happiness,’’ in Brett D. Schaefer, 

ed., ‘‘ConUNdrum: The Limits of the United Nations and the Search for Alternatives’’ (Lanham, 

Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009), p. 182. 44 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Preamble, ¶(e). 45 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). 46Public Law 110–325, § 4(a)(2)(A) (September 25, 2008). 47Transmittal Package, p. 8. 48The CERD Committee rapporteur questioned the U.S. definition of racial discrimination in 

regard to the necessity to prove intentional discrimination versus practices that are facially neuVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
96 

tral but have an unlawful disparate impact upon members of a protected class. Committee on 

the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, ‘‘Questions Put by the Rapporteur in Connection with 

the Consideration of the Combined Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Periodic Reports of the United 

States of America (CERD/C/USA/6),’’ March 7, 2008, pp. 13–15, at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/107362.pdf (April 19, 2010). 49 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, December 10, 1984, in United Nations, ‘‘Treaty Series,’’ Vol. 1465, p. 85, ‘‘Declarations 

and Reservations,’’ United States, II(1), at http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src= 

TREATY&mtdsglno=IV9&chapter=4&lang=en (April 19, 2010). 50 Ibid., I(1). 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Groves. 

Mr. Lancaster. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN LANCASTER, FIRST LIEUTENANT, U.S. 

MARINE CORP, RET., RETIRED EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF 

THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON INDEPENDENT LIVING, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. LANCASTER. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Coons, Senator 

Lugar, other members of the distinguished Foreign Relations Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Convention 

on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

I, too, ask that my full testimony be entered into the record. 

I join 21 veterans organizations and over 165 disability organizations in supporting the CRPD. I request that you support ratification of this treaty and move it to a floor vote in the Senate as soon 

as possible. 

I have served the United States in a variety of capacities, first 

as a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam 

war, and then as a veteran on disability issues both within the 

Government and private sector. I have focused my entire career on 

the rights of people with disabilities. 

My firsthand experience with disability began east of Hue City 

in Vietnam. I had been commissioned as second lieutenant United 

States Marine Corps upon graduation from the University of Notre 

Dame. In 1968, I had orders to Vietnam. Five months into my service, I was shot and injured in a fire fight. 

Although my friends and family welcomed me home as a disabled 

veteran, society did not receive me so well. While there were tensions around the politics of the Vietnam war, it was the inaccessibility of my environment that made me feel unwelcome. I returned to a country not ready to accept a man who now used a 

wheelchair. 

I experienced denial of the simplest pleasures, such as going to 

a restaurant with my family. My alma mater even wanted to deny 

my law school application based on the campus’s then inaccessibility. 

I struggled with needless environmental obstacles and barriers 

ever present in my daily life. That is, until the United States enacted our disability laws. I can tell you that today our returning 

servicemembers with disabilities are welcomed home to a country 

that will not deny them any opportunity or freedom. 

As George H.W. Bush said when signing the ADA, let the shameful walls of exclusion finally come tumbling down. I am so pleased 

to see that President Bush is an advocate for the CRPD, as we 

heard earlier, and is able to now see the global impact the ADA 

is making. 

97 

I tell this story of the ADA because it is the disability movement 

in the United States that has sprouted similar movements abroad 

and inspired the global treaty that we are here to discuss. In 2001, 

the drafting of the CRPD answered our call for a global framework 

on this important issue. 

Civil society contributed in an unprecedented way. Drawing from 

the ADA, the CRPD seeks to ensure that people with disabilities 

are accepted in society, receive reasonable accommodations, and 

are guaranteed options for community living and rights to a family 

life. The adoption of the treaty in 2006 was an incredible accomplishment and has led to the development of disability rights 

around the world. 

If the United States has accomplished so much, then why ratify, 

you have been asking. For one, I believe that U.S. participation on 

the treaty implementation will yield even more progress and will 

offer expertise and technical knowledge that many other countries 

do not have in the area of disability rights. 

From a veteran’s perspective, I think we have much to gain from 

improved accessibility in the world. Accessibility is a major challenge for American athletes—or I want to back up a second. 

Today, some disabled soldiers and Marines remain on Active 

Duty in spite of their disability, continuing to serve. These 

servicemembers and their families should be afforded the same opportunities outside the United States as they enjoy here. 

Many veterans like myself are engaged in international work in 

some capacity. In 2000, a project funded by the U.S. Agency for 

International Development on which I worked, I spent 4 years in 

Hanoi as an adviser to the Vietnamese Government on disability 

law, policy, and programs. In Hanoi, accessible transportation was 

rare. So rare that I would have to hold onto a cyclo or bicycle rickshaw to get around. 

Following its signing of the CRPD in 2007, Vietnam began planning for an accessible rapid bus system in Hanoi, and that system 

is now under development. And I submit that Vietnam is waiting 

to see what we, the United States, do before it ratifies this treaty. 

The CRPD is a wonderful tool to help ensure sustainability of 

U.S. aid dollars spent overseas on disability-related issues, while 

also expanding access for Americans with disabilities who may 

choose to work abroad. 

Accessibility is also a major challenge for American athletes with 

disabilities, many who are veterans, who frequently travel internationally to compete. As this committee considers this treaty, the 

world will be turning their eyes to London for the Paralympics and 

the Olympics. As we send our teams off to compete, we should do 

so with a favorable vote on the CRPD. 

As the treaty package reveals, the United States has an incomparable set of laws that protect the rights of people with disabilities. Looking around the room today, you can see prosthetics, 

wheelchairs, software, and communications technologies developed 

by the United States. Many of these products are engineered, manufactured, or sold by U.S. corporations that can meet the new demands of parties seeking to implement their own disability legislation. 

98 

The United States has valuable information on law and technology to share with the rest of the world, not only for the benefit 

of the world’s 1 billion people with disabilities, but specifically for 

54 million Americans who may wish to work, serve, study, and 

travel abroad. 

In 2012, 22 years after the passage of the ADA, it is unacceptable that many Americans with disabilities still cannot leave their 

own borders without the fear of stigma, barriers, and denial of the 

opportunity to participate in the place that they are visiting. 

Ratifying the CRPD costs nothing. It requires no changes in law, 

as we have heard today. It provides us the leadership opportunity 

to advance and sustain disability rights globally. 

Not joining this treaty comes with a grave cost—the inability of 

the United States to participate and lead and the loss of the opportunity to take a stand for what is right. Forty-two years after serving my country in Vietnam, I still believe in the liberty and freedom we enjoy in the United States and, frankly, our responsibility 

individually and collectively as a nation to serve and participate 

not only here at home, but globally. 

I am proud of this country and our laws, and I urge you, on behalf of 21 veterans organizations and 165 disability organizations, 

to support ratification of this treaty so that we can contribute and 

continue to contribute America’s noble history of leadership. 

Senators, make us proud. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lancaster follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN LANCASTER

Senator Kerry, Senator Lugar, and members of the Foreign Relations Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of American veterans and civilians 

with disabilities on an issue extremely important to us, the Convention on the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities. As a disabled veteran, I join 21 veterans service 

organizations and over 165 disability organizations in supporting the CRPD. I respectfully request that you support U.S. ratification of this disability treaty and 

move it to a floor vote in the Senate. 

Let me provide some background on my career and experience. I have served the 

U.S. in a variety of capacities. First, as a Second Lieutenant in the Marine Corps 

during the Vietnam war, then as an attorney for the Board of Veterans Appeals, 

and later as an Executive assistant to the Chairman and then Executive Director 

of the President’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities. I am currently a Board Member of the U.S. Institute of Peace. As a private citizen, I have 

also served as the Executive Director for the National Council on Independent Living, worked with Paralyzed Veterans of America, and sit on the boards of Handicap 

International, the United States International Council on Disabilities and the World 

Institute on Disability. 

As you can likely surmise, I have focused my entire career on the rights of people 

with disabilities. My firsthand experience with disability was early in my youth. I 

was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Marine Corps upon graduation from 

the University of Notre Dame and the Naval ROTC program in June 1967. After 

additional training, I had orders to Vietnam. I joined the Marine Corps because of 

a firm belief in the liberty, freedom, and opportunity our United States Constitution 

ensures. I believed then, as I do now, in our responsibility to serve our great country 

and what, at its best, we represent to all mankind. In 1968, I arrived in Vietnam 

during the Tet Offensive, assigned to the 1st Battalion, 27th Marines as an Infantry 

Platoon Commander. Five months later, I was shot and injured in a firefight. After 

months of rehabilitation, I arrived back home in western New York a disabled veteran. Although my friends and family welcomed me home, society did not receive 

me quite as well. While there was certainly tension around the politics of the Vietnam war, it was the inaccessibility of my environment that made me feel the least 

welcome. I returned to a country not ready to receive me as a man who now used 

a wheelchair. Let me give you some examples. Buses were not equipped for wheelchair users, neither were trains. Airline companies at the time did not want to deal 

99 

with wheelchairs. Most buildings, including government buildings, were not accessible. I experienced denial of the simplest pleasures such as going to a restaurant 

with my family. Even my own alma mater wanted to deny me the opportunity to 

advance my education. When I applied for law school at Notre Dame, I was told 

that although I qualified they could not accept me because the school was inaccessible. It was only when I agreed to make my own arrangements and bring my own 

chair that they accepted me. I graduated in 1974 with a law degree in spite of these 

unfortunate barriers. The employment discrimination I experienced as a young 

attorney was unbelievable. The only ones who would hire me were the VA’s Board 

of Veterans Appeals. 

For many years, I struggled with needless environmental obstacles and barriers 

ever-present in my daily life. That is, until the U.S. enacted, in what I believe one 

of its proudest moments, the Americans with Disabilities Act under President 

George H.W. Bush. This law led the way for people with disabilities to be accepted 

in society. It removed people from isolation and segregation, and allowed us to enjoy 

the fruits of our country with our family and friends without having to bear the 

shame and stigma of being born with or having acquired a disability. In 1991, a 

year after the ADA passed, I had the pleasure to serve as an assistant to Justin 

Dart, the Chairman of the President’s Committee on Employment of People with 

Disabilities under the George H.W. Bush administration. When President Clinton 

assumed Presidency, the committee’s new Chair, Tony Coelho, appointed me as the 

Executive Director. In my 9 years with the committee, I traveled to every state in 

the country several times assisting business and government leaders in the ADA’s 

implementation. I witnessed the historic changes brought about by the ADA. I can 

tell you that today our returning servicemembers with disabilities are welcomed 

home to a country that will not deny them any opportunity or freedom. As President 

George H.W. Bush had intended, this law crumbled the shameful walls of exclusion. 

I am so pleased to see that that President Bush is an advocate for the CRPD and 

is able to now see the global impact that this law is making 22 years later. 

I tell this story of the ADA in our country because it is the movement of the 

United States disability community that has sprouted similar movements abroad 

and has inspired this global treaty that we are here to discuss today. The American 

disability community as a whole worked tirelessly to see the ADA passed, including 

veterans, the deaf community, people with developmental disabilities, and parents 

of people with disabilities. Following its enactment, we saw an incredible rise in the 

development of disability civil society abroad taking similar action to achieve their 

rights. As we all began to work together and informally share ideas and experiences, 

we decided that it was time for a global framework that would pave the way for 

a world that would protect the dignity and freedom of people with disabilities. The 

U.S. disability community was eager to participate. 

In 2001, the drafting of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

began. Civil society contributed in an unprecedented way. Many of those in the 

room with us today were part of the disability community weighing in on the key 

principles of this important treaty. Drawing from the ADA, the CRPD seeks to ensure that people with disabilities are accepted in society, receive reasonable accommodations (a concept invented by the United States), and are guaranteed options 

for community living and rights to a family life. The adoption of the treaty in 2006 

was an incredible accomplishment and has led to the development of disability 

rights around the world. For the record, let me name a few. Kenya, who ratified 

the treaty in 2008, worked to specifically include the rights of persons with disabilities in their new 2010 Constitution. Nigeria, a country that has a history of serious 

discrimination against children with albinism, has created a ministerial committee 

on albinism since their ratification of the treaty in 2010. Moldova, who also ratified 

in 2010, is currently using the CRPD to develop a roadmap for new methods to 

approach disability domestically with a particular focus on de-institutionalization. 

The United Arab Emirates, since ratifying the CRPD, has enacted a new law that 

focuses on promoting positive attitudes toward disability and improving building 

codes to provide accessibility. These are just a few examples, but the reality is that 

the CRPD is beginning to have a significant impact around the world. 

If the United States has accomplished so much then why ratify, you might ask. 

For one, I believe that U.S. participation on treaty implementation will yield even 

more progress and will offer the expertise and technical knowledge that many of 

these countries do not have in the area of disability rights. From a veteran perspective, I think we have much to gain from the improved accessibility of the world. 

Today, some disabled soldiers and Marines remain on Active Duty in spite of their 

disability, continuing to serve their country. These servicemembers should be afforded the same rights outside the United States as they enjoy here. For a disabled 

veteran working abroad, the adoption of disability rights and implementation of disVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
100 

ability laws allows them to do their jobs more effectively and reaffirms what they 

served for: liberty and the opportunity to participate. Let me add, that I speak also 

for the many servicemembers and veterans abroad who travel with their children 

with disabilities. A more accessible environment in the countries where they are 

stationed will no doubt serve these children well. Many veterans, like myself, are 

engaged in international work in some capacity. From 2000 to 2004, I worked in 

Hanoi as an advisor to the Vietnamese Government on disability law, policy, and 

programs. The project was funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. In Hanoi, accessible transportation was rare so I would hold onto a cyclo, a 

bicycle rickshaw, to get around. Following their signature of the CRPD in 2007, 

Vietnam began planning for an accessible rapid bus system in Hanoi. This system 

is now under development. The CRPD is a wonderful tool to help ensure the sustainability of USAID dollars spent overseas on disability related issues while also 

expanding access for veterans with disabilities, like myself, who choose to work in 

these countries. 

Veterans with disabilities have contributed to the American disability movement 

in many ways, including through participation in sport and recreation. This has 

destroyed stereotypes and created positive messages about equality, dignity, and 

worth. Accessibility is a major challenge for American athletes with disabilities 

during these international trips. From being compelled to deal with air travel regulations that force them to sit in the back of an airplane and crawl to the aircraft 

bathroom, to pilots who refuse to take them or their gear onboard, to hotel accommodations that have limited or no accessibility, to competition facilities with inaccessible bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms—American athletes face countless 

discriminatory and inaccessible obstacles abroad. 

Despite these challenges, the 2012 Paralympic Games later this summer demonstrates the growth and interest in sport for athletes with disabilities. As this committee considers this treaty the world will be turning their eyes to London for both 

the Olympics and Paralympics. The International Paralympic Committee has confirmed that 165 countries—19 more than in Beijing 4 years ago—will send more 

than 4,200 competitors to the Games making it the largest Paralympic competition 

to date. The U.S., a leader in sport for people with disabilities, sends one of the largest teams, and our athletes are some of the best trained and coached in the world. 

This year’s delegation will also feature many new athletes with disabilities—veterans and Active Duty service men and women—who are finding success competing 

in Paralympic sport. Regrettably they are subjected to the same inhospitable conditions created by the lack of accessibility in the international travel and sporting environments found in other countries. As we send our teams off this summer, and 

celebrate their success in international competition, we should do so with a favorable vote on the CRPD behind us. Ratification of the CRPD is a must for the U.S. 

to remain competitive since our athletes must compete in international competitions 

to obtain and maintain their international rankings. 

These are just a few examples of why it is in the United States interest to ratify 

the CRPD. As the treaty package presented to the Senate reveals, the U.S. has an 

incomparable set of laws that protect the rights of people with disabilities. Looking 

around this room today, you can see the prosthetics, wheelchairs, software and communications technologies developed by the United States. As more countries ratify 

at an unprecedented pace, the need for accessible devices and software steadily increases for people with disabilities around the world. Many of these products are 

engineered, manufactured, or sold by U.S. corporations that can meet these new demands. Indeed, the CRPD is good for all American businesses. It will level the playing field for foreign businesses. They will now have to comply with the employment 

rights and the accommodation requirements that U.S. businesses already meet. The 

United States has valuable information to share with the rest of the world, not only 

for the benefit of the world’s 1 billion people with disabilities, but specifically for 

the 54 million people with disabilities who may wish to work, serve, study, and 

travel abroad. In 2012, 22 years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, it is unacceptable that many Americans with disabilities cannot leave the borders of the United States without the fear of stigma, barriers, and denial of their 

rights. 

Ratifying the CRPD costs nothing, will require no changes in law, and provides 

us the leadership opportunity to effectively guide a framework for countries to advance and sustain disability rights in their own country. Not joining this treaty, 

however, comes with a grave cost: the inability of the U.S. to participate and the 

loss of an opportunity to take a stand for what’s right. Forty-two years after I served 

our country in Vietnam, I still believe in the same principles of why I first enlisted: 

I stand behind a firm belief in the liberty and freedom we enjoy in the United States 

and our responsibility to serve and participate. I am proud of this country and our 

101 

laws and I urge you, on behalf of 21 veterans service organizations and 165 disability organizations, to support ratification of this treaty so that we can participate 

and continue America’s noble history of leadership. 

Senator SHAHEEN [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Lancaster. 

As you can see, we have had a little bit of a revolving gavel this 

morning. I will be, hopefully, chairing until the end of the hearing. 

I am the person with the most flexible schedule this morning, apparently. 

And with that in mind, I would like to ask Senator Durbin to go 

first with his questions. 

Senator DURBIN. Thanks, Senator Shaheen. 

I think Senator Kerry saved the best for last in terms of your 

chairing this hearing. 

Senator SHAHEEN. That is very nice. Thank you. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. 

General Thornburgh, thank you for being here, and your testimony I reviewed. 

Mr. Wodatch, thank you for your continuing work in this area on 

disability rights. 

And Mr. Lancaster, thank you for serving our country so nobly 

and for speaking on behalf of the 20-plus veterans organizations 

that have endorsed this Convention. But thank you for being here 

and explaining why it is so important from the veterans’ point of 

view. 

Dr. Farris, politicians are often accused of saying one thing and 

then contradicting it with something else. And I am going to give 

you a chance to clear up something in your testimony which I think 

is contradictory. 

You have bold print here in reference to this treaty, calling it 

‘‘false’’ and ‘‘misleading.’’ ‘‘This treaty requires radical changes to 

American law,’’ and you go so far as to say this treaty would, ‘‘violate the principles of American sovereignty and liberty.’’ That is, I 

think, almost as strong as I have ever read. It suggests that this 

treaty is a blockbuster change in terms of law and sovereignty. 

But then, then in the same statement, you quote Professor Louis 

Henkin, who says that when you put reservations on a treaty, you 

are pretending to assume international obligations but, in fact, undertaking nothing. And then you go on to say the message will be 

that treaties are for show and have no more impact than you want 

them to have. 

Dr. Farris, you can’t have it both ways. This can’t be the end of 

American sovereignty as we know it and still be some pretend effort that has no impact whatsoever. So which is it? 

Dr. FARRIS. Senator, I think you misunderstand the nature of my 

argument from Professor Henkin. What Professor Henkin is addressing is the approach of ratification that says we are not going 

to do anything more than existing law. He says that is inappropriate. 

I don’t think that that is what is going on here, but that is what 

we have heard all day long, that we are doing nothing more than 

just simply ratifying, recommitting ourselves to obeying existing 

American law. And if that is what the treaty is about, if that was 

true, then the treaty does nothing and is callous and misleading. 

102 

But it is not what the treaty does because I enter this with the 

assumption that the United States is going to obey the treaty in 

good faith. And if we are going to obey the treaty in good faith, 

then we have the obligation to conform our law to the principles 

of it. 

In legal terms, Senator Durbin, I have argued in the alternative, 

which often happens. And if one thing is true, then one critique applies. If something else is true, if the other alternative is true, then 

the other critique applies. I assume that we are going to be complying with the treaty and not doing what Iran has done and said, 

we are going to obey the treaty when we want to and we are not 

going to obey the treaty when we don’t want to. 

Senator DURBIN. Dr. Farris, we have ample testimony that the 

Americans with Disabilities Act already is in full compliance with 

the principles of this treaty. Let me address one issue that has 

arisen several times. 

Senator McCain made a point early on that he is proud of his 

pro-life status when it comes to voting and is also sensitive to the 

fact that many babies with disabilities overseas are denied life. 

And if they are allowed to live, are denied access, education, opportunities. 

And this may change in other countries. We certainly hope that 

it does. And now the argument comes in your testimony that, in 

fact, this is somehow going to promote abortion. 

I would like to call your attention to several things. In 2006, the 

National Right to Life Committee stated, quote, and this is in reference to the same treaty as adopted by the United Nations. And 

I quote from the National Right to Life committee, ‘‘Even though 

the treaty includes the undefined and controversial term ‘reproductive health,’ its inclusion cannot legitimately be misinterpreted to 

include abortion or to create any new rights, such as a right to an 

abortion.’’ 

So said the National Right to Life Committee in 2006. The National Right to Life Committee, the Holy See, and pro-life countries 

that have signed the treaty all concluded that there is no right to 

an abortion set forth in this treaty. Isn’t it true that the only folks 

to disagree with these leading pro-life voices are you and Mr. 

Groves? 

Dr. FARRIS. No, Senator. Three nations—Poland, Malta, and one 

other that I mentioned in my testimony—have taken reservations 

to Article 25 on the question of abortion. Those nations were convinced that it was necessary, too. They read the treaty the same 

way that I read the treaty. 

And it is not a question of whether they have the right to an 

abortion. The question is whether they have a right to abortion 

funding. That would be the nature of Article 25. 

Senator DURBIN. Well, let me say, Dr. Farris, that what I think 

was made clear in earlier testimony from the Department of Justice is that we are ending discrimination. The existing laws of the 

country will prevail in this circumstance, whatever those laws may 

be, on controversial issues like this. 

But I think that earlier statement raises some serious questions 

about your conclusion. 

Thank you. 

103 

Dr. FARRIS. Senator, may I respond briefly to that? 

Senator DURBIN. Sure. 

Dr. FARRIS. What the Department of Justice was relying on was 

simply the language of subsection (b) of Article 25. That is not 

what all is in Article 25. 

Article 25 contains other provisions beyond the nondiscrimination provision. And the preamble and other subsections of the treaty require the provision of full health services. And there’s no reason to believe that the provision of full health services as defined 

by the treaty would include—— 

Senator DURBIN. Dr. Farris, there is an express statement in the 

reservation that this does not create any personal cause of action 

or right in the courts of the United States. Now, unless you just 

reject that out of hand and don’t want to read it, I don’t think you 

can take that position. 

Thank you very much. 

Dr. FARRIS. Senator, I am not taking—— 

Senator DURBIN. I get the last word. I’m a Senator. Thank you. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Senator Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. Without being too repetitious, let me just say 

that, as I have heard the testimony from both of our panels, essentially, we have had reservations to this treaty. And they are meant 

to protect our laws, or various aspects that were meant to be protected. 

But the administration is advocating that we ratify the treaty, 

because we would join a committee which serves as a forum for reforms throughout the world, so that we have a place around the 

table. 

And we are able, on behalf of Americans who go to other countries, as well as citizens of those countries, to bring about changes 

that we believe would be constructive, recognizing that the other 

countries with whom we are discussing this may have reservations 

and decide that even though we have very good will, in terms of 

humanity, they would disagree on certain particulars as to what is 

going to occur in their countries. 

So essentially, the treaty provides for this forum that brings 

about a worldwide discussion. And our thought is that the example 

we present, and maybe other countries feel the same way, would 

lead to humanitarian changes that were constructive, and we 

would applaud those and feel that is valuable to have. 

Now, some are arguing that we could participate in international 

conversations in any event, and at least profess the things we believe, and other countries might be moved to do those things. And, 

therefore, that treaty is not necessary for all of this. 

My question, I suppose, is to ask the panel, why is the treaty, 

the committee we have heard discussed today, that we are not 

around the table with as it stands, important in the form of a treaty, as opposed to our attempting to take the initiative and maybe 

finding other fora in which our advocacy for change is made and 

we try to be persuasive? 

Would anyone like to volunteer as to why the treaty forum is 

preferable? 

Mr. Thornburgh. 

104 

Mr. THORNBURGH. I think, Senator, what we have to recognize 

as a leader in the area of disability rights is that we must use 

every opportunity we have to spread the gospel, I guess one might 

say, and at the same time recognize that this is a very dynamic 

area. 

Disability rights is a work in progress, and we have a lot to contribute to the dialogue that ensues in the discussion of that work 

in progress. And I am not prepared to say that we couldn’t learn 

from others’ experience as time goes on. 

The fact that it is a work in progress is evident by your own experience in the Congress. As much as we revere the Americans 

with Disabilities Act and have praised it rightfully in our discussions today, in 2008, we needed the ADA Amendments Act to adjust to certain court decisions and actions that had taken place, to 

update, upgrade, if you will, that important legislation. 

That kind of dynamic is going to ensue one way or another under 

this Convention as time goes on. And for us to turn our back on 

the opportunity to make constructive contributions to that dialogue, and to foster those improvements and changes that might be 

necessary, would seem to me to be foolhardy in the extreme if our 

commitment really is to the widest and fullest enjoyment of disability rights. 

None of this would involve us, in any of these changes, in any 

change in our domestic law, necessarily, because, clearly, to the 

point of exhaustion, I think we have made clear that there is no 

sanction authority, no real capability on the part of this committee 

or on the U.N. itself to force the United States to make changes. 

It is merely, I think, an important avenue for us to pursue in 

seeing that our voice is heard and that we listen to others. 

Senator LUGAR. In essence, this Convention is an important 

enough forum, as opposed to other committees or other fora we 

might find somewhere in the world, this particular one is important enough that it deserves this attention, because the 118 countries are there or because of the prestige now attached to it. 

I am trying to find specifically why this route is the preferable 

one. 

Mr. WODATCH. Let me add to the discussion. The disabilities 

committee is one venue that the Convention sets up. There is also 

an annual meeting at the U.N., a conference of state parties. It was 

alluded to earlier by the State Department. 

This is the meeting where the countries of the world who have 

ratified come together to share their best practices, to understand 

how they should move their laws, what their policies should be, 

what their regulations should say. 

I think if we ratified the treaty, we are able to participate and 

bring U.S. expertise to those meetings. We can bring discussions of 

how we have complied with the ADA in this country in a low-cost 

manner, the importance of having accessibility building codes that 

are meaningful, the importance of enforcement mechanisms and 

how they can work in their cultures and their legal systems. 

Unless we have ratified the treaty, we don’t get a place at the 

table. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

105 

Senator SHAHEEN. Senator DeMint has requested that, since he 

has to leave, he could go next. 

So, Senator DeMint. 

Senator DEMINT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

And I want to thank Senator Kerry and everyone. It has been a 

great discussion. I appreciate all our panelists, all the folks who 

have come today. 

I think what we have done with disabilities in America is probably one of those areas that makes us really proud to be an American. We made incredible progress. 

And as our panels have said today, we really inspire the world 

to do better, and we helped to create the global framework for what 

to do with disabilities. So what we have done with the ADA has 

basically been codified by the United Nations, and being shared all 

over the world, is something that we should be proud of. 

But one of the things I learned in my years in the private sector, 

working with continuous quality improvement, is that we can never 

accept the status quo. The United States can do even better than 

we are doing. 

And all of you know, being involved with veterans and disabilities, that throughout the year, every year, disabilities groups, veterans groups, are meeting. They’re talking. They’re discovering 

ways to help the disabled more, using new technologies. They’re advocating with local, state, Federal officials. 

Some things are being done by governments. More things are 

being done voluntarily by industry and builders and those who are 

just trying to be more accommodating. 

We cannot accept where we are. 

And now, after we have inspired the world, to come in today and 

say, well, we have to be a part of a legally binding international 

treaty in order to lead the world, I know what’s going to happen 

after working in quality improvement. All of these agencies and 

groups that are involved with disabilities are going to be working 

to be prepared for this 4-year study. 

Just like our teachers teach the test, we’re going to see our disabilities community preparing for the status quo, rather than continuing what is happening. They have to please this international 

committee with what we have already codified. 

I am just convinced that aspirational goals are important, but 

standards have to continuously improve. Protocols, technologies, 

and, folks, there are so many ways, voluntarily, through associations. 

I know how qualities improve with peer groups, industry groups 

around the country, coming together, voluntarily sharing best practices, just continuing to raise those standards. 

So I’m not advocating for no standards. I’m just advocating for 

no status quo, because we need to continue to lead the world. 

In submitting to an international treaty, on one hand saying it 

has no enforcement power and it is not legally binding, and the 

other hand saying we have to be involved with a legally binding 

international treaty, it’s just completely inconsistent. 

We need to lead the world. We need to continue to make progress 

in this area. But, folks, submitting ourselves—and you can’t say it’s 

not submitting; we are signing a legal document to be a part of 

106 

something—I think it is going to lock us into a status quo that is 

far beneath where the United States needs to end up. 

So this cause is too important. I want to be much further than 

where we are 5 years from now, not trying to comply with existing 

standards that we have today. And that is what is going to happen 

under an international agreement, because, as Dr. Farris has said, 

the United States follows the rules. If we sign here that we are 

going to follow the rules of this treaty, we will adapt our laws to 

what is in it. 

So again, I thank everyone. I think it is important to continue 

to bring it up. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the give-and-take that you have allowed today. You have been very fair with the time. 

I hope we can continue to progress with this. 

But I hope we will all question whether or not we need to be a 

part of a legal situation around the world, when what is going on 

now, that everyone is saying is working, has been because we set 

the standard for the world and they are following us. We need to 

continue to raise that standard. 

Thanks for allowing me to go out of turn. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Senator Kerry. 

The CHAIRMAN. Madam Chairman, thank you. 

And thanks very much, Senator DeMint. I appreciate your comments of a moment ago. 

And I happen to agree with you, Senator. 

I guess he is leaving. It’s too bad, because I was about to welcome him to the ranks of being the strongest proponent for the 

rights of those with disabilities and wanting to advance it faster. 

But there is something incongruous in the notion that he wants 

to do that—and I am not diminishing his genuine intent to do it. 

There’s just something fundamentally incongruous if all of the advocates of day-to-day lifetime endeavor are saying they need this 

treaty in order to best be able to do that. 

So if you are talking about not being able to have two things at 

the same time, he says you can’t sign onto a treaty and not accept 

the notion that there are real obligations there. I happen to agree 

with him. I don’t think anybody should diminish that. I want real 

obligations there. And I think that is what we are signing onto. 

And they are clear what they are. 

So he is absolutely correct. You can’t have it both ways and say 

it doesn’t mean anything, it’s not going to have any impact. 

What it doesn’t mean is that it requires something different of 

the States or that the Federal Government is going to impose 

something on the States. I mean, there’s a whole series of things 

that it doesn’t mean. 

But it does mean, we are trying to establish a standard that is 

a high standard on a global basis, and the United States happens 

to be further along in that, and it is not going to require changes 

in our laws. 

Now, I think we have to frame this accurately as we go along 

here. 

But, similarly, you can’t say I want to advance the cause for 

those with disabilities more than anybody else when everybody in 

the community believes you have to have this treaty to do it. 

107 

So I think the record has to show more clearly why the members 

of the community specifically have come to that conclusion that differs with someone like Senator DeMint or others who oppose the 

treaty. What is it that really comes through here? 

Now, I have a number of questions to try to flesh that out a little 

bit. 

In your statement, Dr. Farris, you say that you deeply resent the 

attempts by advocates of the treaty to mislead members of the disabled community with a false promise, that U.S. ratification will 

lead to material improvements when Americans with disabilities 

travel to other nations. 

Now, I want to give the advocates of the treaty an opportunity 

to respond to that. I don’t know if that happened previously. 

But I first want to make sure I understand why you are so resentful of those advocates. Is your point that there is no mechanism by which an American under this treaty could sue Vietnam 

or the United Kingdom or whatever country they are traveling in? 

I mean, what is the point of how they are being misled here? 

Dr. FARRIS. The impression is being given by the administration’s materials and by the testimony today that if we ratify these 

treaties, suddenly, when Americans travel to other nations, it is 

going to be a more accessible environment. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, let me stop you there. 

Mr. Wodatch, can you speak to that? 

Mr. WODATCH. Certainly. 

I believe the State Department testified earlier that ratification, 

the results of ratification, will bring about changes in the laws of 

other countries because of our leadership and intervention with 

them. There will be changes in their laws when we sit down with 

them and teach them and work with them to develop an accessibility code that has the right slope for a ramp, that has the right 

width for the door. 

The CHAIRMAN. So is it the ‘‘suddenly’’ that you disagree with, 

Dr. Farris? Or is it what Mr. Wodatch just said? He says there will 

be changes. 

Dr. FARRIS. There will be changes that are effective only when 

there is domestic law at each level. American ratification—the 

question is, does American ratification lead to new laws in, let’s 

say, Portugal relative to wheelchair ramp levels and angles and so 

on. 

And it is basically the argument, because we gain a seat at this 

international table primarily for diplomats, we will suddenly—that 

will translate into better laws in Portugal. 

If that was true, if human rights treaties lead to improved laws 

in other nations, and there was a track record for that, we’d see 

it in other areas. 

Take, for example, North Korea has ratified the ICCPR. Does 

anybody in their right mind think that North Korea is living up to 

international standards? 

Sweden has ratified multiple international treaties, including the 

ICCPR and the ICESCR, both of which have parents’ rights and 

education provisions. Yet Sweden kidnaps kids off of planes who 

are on their way to another nation, where they are a dual citizen, 

108 

because they were homeschooling. They flaunt their international 

obligations. 

The point is, international obligations do not lead to national legislation. What leads to national legislation are political movements 

within those countries. 

The CHAIRMAN. Will you speak to that, Mr. Wodatch? 

Mr. WODATCH. I attended the sessions that developed this Convention. And it was clear the United States has a different view toward treaties. We will only ratify a treaty if we know that we can 

comply with that treaty. The other nations of the world do not follow that. 

It became very clear, the countries of South America—Ecuador 

and Mexico—who were very strong proponents of this treaty, Chili, 

other countries came to us and said we need—to get domestic law, 

we need a statement from the U.N. that this is important. They 

need leadership from the United States to say this is how it works 

when you ratify it. 

The CHAIRMAN. You mean from the United States? 

Mr. WODATCH. A statement from the United States, that we will 

come and work with them. 

And that has begun to happen already. If you look at the countries that have ratified, they are making changes to their domestic 

law. 

Spain has brought about a new comprehensive law. Great Britain has, for the first time, attempted to cover its private sector to 

make it accessible. There are changes that will come about. There 

will be more. And the ability of the United States to work with 

those countries and have them develop disability laws that are effective and pragmatic will bring about positive results for not only 

the people of those countries with disabilities, but for American 

citizens who travel and work and live in those countries. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think, Dr. Farris, one thing I would say to you 

is, look, I mean, in all of our perfection here in the United States, 

we have a lot of laws that we fall short on. 

I used to be a prosecutor. We spent years and years trying to 

deal with whether it is drugs or prostitution or gambling or whatever. And we are not as effective as we like to think we are in a 

lot of things. We fall short, but we are aspirational. We have a 

standard. And we try to apply it as evenly as possible. That is true 

among nations also. 

And I think you are inevitably going to find one nation or another that may not apply something as well. It doesn’t mean that 

you are not moving upward, ratcheting upward. 

But let me just ask you, Mr. Lancaster, in your statement, I 

don’t see anywhere in it that you assert that Americans are going 

to be given individual and enforceable rights under this treaty 

when they travel abroad. 

I understand that your point, and I have a stack of letters from 

every conceivable disabilities and veterans advocacy group making 

the same point, and that is that the Convention will give the 

United States an additional tool by which we can encourage other 

governments to adopt their own laws and improve conditions for 

the disabled. 

109 

Now, No. 1, do I understand your point correctly, Mr. Lancaster? 

And No. 2, do I understand that you have examples of where, when 

you traveled abroad, you faced disability challenges? And you believe this will, in fact, address some of those? 

Mr. LANCASTER. Yes, you do understand me correctly, Senator, 

and the points that I was making. 

And yes, I do know of significant impact that the treaty is already beginning to have on a number of countries. Let me give you 

some quick examples. 

The often-troubled country of Kenya, in 2010, has adopted many 

of the principles that are contained in the treaty in including people with disabilities in their new Constitution in 2010. 

United Arab Emirates is making big moves around architectural 

barrier standards, so that they can remove those, and new buildings and facilities will be modified and new ones will come online 

appropriately, so that they are accessible to people with disabilities. 

They have also put into law something that is a problem, frankly, in many countries of the world, in many cultures, but a law that 

is now encouraging the people in the society to look differently at 

disability and to be accepting of people with disabilities in a variety 

of walks of life. A very significant move and something that in our 

culture we may not totally understand but in their culture has 

huge impact. 

Moldova is making significant change in their laws to make sure 

that they aren’t going the route of institutionalizing people and 

putting kids away in special schools. 

I know from the work that I have done in Vietnam and from the 

years that I lived over there and continuing to follow it, that since 

this treaty was passed, Vietnam is starting to make moves in a variety of areas—transportation, the removal of architectural barriers. 

They are, frankly, looking to see how the United States is going 

to do with this treaty. And I am not going to speak for the Government of Vietnam, but I bet you they are waiting to see whether we 

ratify before they ratify and really embrace this movement. And 

they have done a lot of work, including starting to refine their own 

disability law so that it does comply with all the aspects of the 

Convention. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just interrupt you there, if I can, because 

I have gone over my time. 

I have one more question. And I ask for indulgence to do it, and 

then I will stop. 

As I said, the record will remain open for a week. 

But one other thing I would like to just get on the record, if I 

can, and leave this question out there. 

Dr. Farris, in your written statement, you say that the treaty is 

going to require radical changes in American law. I would like you 

to say what those radical changes would be and particularly given 

the testimony to the effect that there would be no changes required. 

We can’t have it both ways. It just can’t require radical changes 

and at the same time not require any, which is what we have been 

110 

told. And so I would like both Mr. Wodatch and Attorney General 

Thornburgh to bear down on this question. 

I would like you to answer first, Dr. Farris, and then I would like 

both of you to bear down on, since the treaty is not self-executing 

in the United States, it is hard for me to understand, given the reservations and declarations and understandings, there would be a 

change needed. 

I would like Mr. Thornburgh, if you would also, General 

Thornburgh, if you would point out to us the bottom line as to why 

it is so critical to ratify this to advance the rights of disabled people 

measured against what Dr. Farris is saying. 

Dr. FARRIS. Senator Kerry, I, frankly, just don’t accept the conclusions by the State Department and the Department of Justice 

concerning the effects of the reservations. 

If you examine the details of the reservations, there was a comparison of the federalism reservation in this treaty with what was 

purported to be a federalism reservation in the ICCPR. It is actually a federalism understanding in the ICCPR. The language is different, and that difference is significant. We have to drill down on 

specific language. 

None of the testimony that has been proffered today—excuse me. 

Most of the testimony that has been proffered today is at a 35,000- 

foot level. There’s been very little drilling down on the exact meaning of terms and articles. And because I proceed on the premise 

that the United States will live up to its obligations in good faith 

for ratifying the treaty, we have a binding international obligation. 

That doesn’t mean some committee forces us to do it. We force 

ourselves to live up to the international law that we say we are 

going to live up to. And so the non-self-executing provisions of the 

treaty doesn’t mean we don’t have to change our laws. It only 

specifies which agency of government is responsible for changing 

our law. 

And the answer is, because of the virtue of that declaration, Congress is responsible. The federalism provision doesn’t mean that 

there is no shifting in power between the States and the Federal 

Government. That is not what it says. That is not what it means. 

That is not what it will mean in actual practice. 

Congress will gain additional power, because under the necessary 

and proper clause under the Constitution, Congress has all the authority it needs to implement any duties that it has. Once the 

United States ratifies a treaty, Congress, the Nation, has the duty 

to comply with the treaty. 

And so any law that is necessary and proper to comply with that 

treaty is fair game and it is within our constitutional prerogative. 

And that fits within the federalism reservation. 

Basically, Congress will help plenary authority over all these 

subjects, whereas the States currently have at least some semblance of authority on these things. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you believe that President George Herbert 

Walker Bush and Attorney General Thornburgh and Majority 

Leader Robert Dole, and a bunch of other people, just don’t understand the Constitution or can’t read the law? 

Dr. FARRIS. I believe they reached incorrect conclusions about the 

meaning of the reservations. 

111 

The CHAIRMAN. You have your opportunity to defend yourselves, 

gentlemen. 

Mr. WODATCH. The treaty, as ratified, that the administration is 

proposing, would include a series of reservations, understandings, 

and declarations. But I think we start with the treaty first. 

And the treaty first is a nondiscrimination treaty. Its core is 

equal opportunity. Its core is to give people with disabilities in the 

country that ratifies the treaty the same rights that people without 

disabilities have. 

We start from that premise. Even Article 7 about children that 

Dr. Farris talked about, the first Article 7 provision 1 talks about 

‘‘on an equal basis with others.’’ It, by its own terms, is a nondiscrimination provision. 

But the administration’s very careful package of reservations, 

understandings, and declarations takes the treaty further. And 

once they are included in the treaty, they become the treaty. 

Therefore, the reservation on federalism talks about the allocation of responsibility between State and local government and Federal Government, and says that the United States is undertaking 

its obligations under this treaty with an understanding that it will 

follow the laws of the Federal Government and not change the laws 

of the State or local governments. That becomes part of the treaty. 

Therefore, the State law on civil commitment, on guardianship, 

on parental rights, will remain unchanged by this treaty. 

The same thing with the reservation on private conduct is very 

important, because it will exclude that zone of private activity that 

is protected by the United States Constitution, as well as give 

meaning to the U.S. laws that we enforce. 

For example, Title I of the ADA applies to employers, but it applies to employers with 15 or more employees. What the private 

conduct reservation says is, our understanding of our obligation 

under this treaty will be to follow the laws that we have. 

Therefore, the treaty will not by its operation change the U.S. 

law or the exemptions in the U.S. law for covering churches, for 

covering private homes, or for covering small businesses. 

The understanding that talks about economic, social, and cultural rights, that is a very important understanding, says that 

there will be no new rights. You can read some of the provisions 

of this treaty as creating rights that we have not recognized. That 

understanding is very important. It says that our understanding of 

how we will comply with this treaty is by looking at the laws of 

the United States. And the package the administration sent forward includes a very comprehensive list of those laws that I think 

we have all agreed are the gold standard for the world to follow 

on what are disability rights for people with disabilities. 

And then the non-self-executing declaration makes clear that no 

one—there are no individually enforceable rights, and no one can 

take this treaty and enforce it in the United States. 

The CHAIRMAN. In the interest of time, if I could ask you to give 

a quick answer, and then we can get the full answer. 

Mr. THORNBURGH. I will give you a very quick answer, because 

I am not as good a lawyer as John Wodatch is. 

[Laughter.] 

112 

Mr. THORNBURGH. I see nothing in this proposed treaty and its 

reservations, understandings, and declarations as part of the administration package that would oblige the Government of the 

United States at the Federal, State, or local level to undertake any 

action whatsoever. Nor do I see any limitations upon what the governments of the United States at the Federal, State, or local level 

can do in the ordinary pursuit of their constitutional responsibilities. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thank you for that very much. When I 

hear the former Attorney General of the United States, who I know 

is a terrific lawyer, saying you are not as good a lawyer, it is that 

old, ‘‘I’m just a country lawyer’’ routine. 

[Laughter.] 

We’ve heard that before a few juries in our lifetime. 

Thank you very much, all of you. I really appreciate you being 

here very, very much. 

Madam Chairman, thank you. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to each of you for joining us today. I am honored by 

your presence and appreciate your insight into these matters. 

Mr. Groves, I wanted to start with you. And I would like to turn, 

if we can, to Article 46 of the Convention, with regard to reservations. 

It says that reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the present convention shall not be permitted. I don’t know 

whether you can answer this for me or not, but I am curious as 

to who is the arbiter of this? Who decides whether or not there is 

a compatibility problem with the reservation, between a reservation and the Convention itself? 

Mr. GROVES. Thank you, Mr. Lee. 

I mean, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

will certainly and definitively believe that they are the arbiter of 

what is and what is not the object and purpose of the Convention. 

This would be just the latest in a continuing pattern of treaty 

rights bodies over in Geneva who have said, over the objections of 

U.S. officials in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, that 

they are the final say on what the terms of a treaty mean. They 

are the ones who have the final say on how the treaty shall be applied and whether your domestic laws are in compliance or in violation of the norms and values that the committee has interpreted. 

So make no mistake about it. And the United States is regularly 

requested by treaty body committees to remove reservations and 

understandings and declarations that we have submitted when we 

have ratified these treaties. 

So my view is that the committee would believe themselves to be 

the definitive judge on that. 

Senator LEE. OK, OK. 

One of the reasons that that provision, Article 46, caught my attention was because I started noticing some interesting language 

throughout the Convention that Dr. Farris referred to in his written remarks. 

Dr. Farris, I was wondering if you could just tell us briefly about 

the dichotomy between what you referred to in your written stateVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
113 

ment—on the one hand, civil and political rights, as they’re recognized under the rubric of international conventions, and on the 

other hand, economic, cultural, and social rights? 

Dr. FARRIS. Yes, Senator Lee, thank you for the chance to explain that. 

In human rights laws, they are basically five segments of human 

rights—civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. That 

division is most celebrated in the two treaties, the ICCPR, the 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the 

ICESCR, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. 

Nondiscrimination is a civil or political right. It is what government cannot do to you. It cannot discriminate against you. It cannot deny you freedom of speech. It cannot deny you the freedom of 

religion. 

The American constitutional rights that we know, including the 

equal protection clause, including the Bill of Rights, are all negative rights in terms of the rubric of international human rights 

laws. 

Positive rights—economic, social, and cultural rights—are what 

the government must to do for you. If you just think of the word 

‘‘entitlements,’’ you understand the nature of an economic, social, 

and cultural rights. 

And the reason the United States has never joined the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights is because of a longtime understanding in international law that commits us, essentially, to a program of socialism. 

Senator LEE. And do we have any treaty currently enforced that 

the United States has ratified that embraces economic, social, and 

cultural rights? 

Dr. FARRIS. There is no treaty that the United States is a party 

to today where economic, social, and cultural rights are a chief feature. There may be some stray references here or there in other 

treaties. 

But as a core feature, treaties like CEDA or the CRC, the Convention of Rights for Children, and other economic, social, and cultural rights treaties, we have not ratified them precisely because 

it commits our Nation to a program of internationally monitored 

socialism, what the government must furnish the people. 

This would be the first treaty in U.S. history where we—and 

that’s the reason I said it was so radical, is that it would be the 

first treaty to commit us to international government programs of 

socialism through the ESC, or the economic, social, and cultural 

rights provisions. 

And I don’t believe that the understanding—first of all, I don’t 

place too much weight in understandings. I’d rather have reservations. The understanding the United States has written in this regard doesn’t say we’re not going to do this. It just says we are 

going to do it pursuant to Federal law, which on the one hand, the 

treaty creates the obligation to engage in these economic, social, 

and cultural rights. And the ESCR understanding just says we are 

going to do it according to Federal law. 

114 

It doesn’t say insofar as such rights are recognized and implemented under existing U.S. Federal law. If it said that, then OK. 

Then it means what everybody has been purporting it to mean. 

But it doesn’t say existing Federal law. It just means Federal law 

has got to comply with the treaty relative to these matters. 

Senator LEE. So you don’t see that understanding with respect 

to economic, social, and cultural rights as an opt-out by the United 

States of an effort by this Convention to embrace economic, social, 

and cultural rights? 

Dr. FARRIS. I read that understanding to assign jurisdiction to 

Congress to comply with it. That’s it. It doesn’t give that responsibility to States. It gives that responsibility to Congress. 

It is an assignment of jurisdiction. It is not a denial of any duties 

of the United States to comply with the rights created under the 

ESC rubric of the treaty. 

Senator LEE. And there are some affirmative duties under that, 

as far as I can tell. Unless I am reading it incorrectly, I see Article 

4 of the Convention, which deals with general obligation of states’ 

parties to the Convention. 

Article 4, Section 2 says with regard to economic, social, and cultural rights, each state party undertakes to take such measures to 

the maximum of its available resources and, where needed, within 

the framework of international cooperation, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of those rights. 

So you would interpret that there to say of those rights, meaning 

those economic, social, and cultural rights. 

Dr. FARRIS. There is no doubt that that is what that means. If 

you would write any other answer on an exam in my class in public 

international law, I would fail you for failing to understand the 

meaning of a treaty. 

You absolutely correctly said, if we are going to comply with the 

treaty—now, all of my testimony is presumed that America is going 

to comply with the treaty. If we are not going to comply, then all 

my concerns go away. 

But if we’re going to comply with the treaty, we have a duty to 

comply with the provisions relative to economic, social, and cultural 

rights. And under the rubric of the understanding, all it does is assign jurisdiction to Congress to do the complying. 

And so, yes, there are lots of things. The private action provision 

in that same Article 4 says that no person shall discriminate 

against any person on the basis of disability, which, setting aside 

the RUDs for a second, and just taking the treaty on its face, that 

means the traveling salesman comes to my front door and wants 

to get into my house and he is in a wheelchair and I don’t have 

accessibility for him, then I am in violation of the treaty. 

The United States has a responsibility to pass laws to make me 

make my house and every homeowner in America make their 

house accessible, because no person can discriminate on the basis 

of disability. ‘‘No person’’ is very broad. It means everybody. It is 

every business, every home, everybody. 

Now, the question is—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. Dr. Farris and Senator Lee, I am going to cut 

you off at this point, because, Senator Lee, your time has expired. 

115 

And I would still like to ask some questions, so given that we’re 

at the end of this hearing, I am going to reserve the right to do 

that. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Chair. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Lancaster, I want to go back to you, because I think your effort to address the question about traveling and the challenges that 

we face, and the difference that this treaty might make for Americans in that respect got cut a little short. So I want to go back and 

ask you, as the only person on this panel who has personally had 

to experience the challenges that members of our disabilities community face when they travel here in America or abroad, if you 

could, again, address why you think this treaty would make a difference for people with disabilities? 

Mr. LANCASTER. Thank you, Senator. 

I do think it will make a huge difference for us. And it is not 

going to do it immediately. It takes a long time to change attitudes 

and infrastructure. But it is already happening in a number of 

areas in the world. 

If you look at the European Union, they are making great advances in terms of transportation, architectural barriers, inclusive 

education, many things that we have been advocating for years. 

And it is the impotence of this Convention that has them really 

stepping up. Countries like—I keep referring to Vietnam, but it is 

a country that I have much experience with. Vietnam, I know Thailand, are places where they have already made significant changes 

to mass transit systems and are working on making more and the 

build environment. 

Again, inclusive education is another area where certain countries in Southeast Asia are now starting to make steps, because of 

this CRPD. And I think that that’s a major, major reason why we 

should join in ratification of that, is to give further impetus to 

these changes, not only for our benefit, but for the rest of the 

world. 

And frankly, if I could just take a second here, Senator, to tell 

you, I am appalled with some of the conversation that has been 

going on here today, as a veteran, and as someone who volunteered, laid my life on the line for freedom, rights, dignity. And 

now to have this whole debate that we are not willing to espouse 

that to the rest of the world, that we are not willing to walk the 

talk in international circles, to step up in a forum to advocate these 

things and to say we are not afraid to sign this thing. 

We aspire to what is in this Convention. This is what we are 

about as a nation, including people, giving them freedom, giving 

them rights, giving them the opportunity to work, to learn, to participate. 

Isn’t that what we’re about? Isn’t that what we want the rest of 

the world to be about? Well, if we aren’t willing to say this is a 

good thing, and to say it formally, what are we about, really? 

Senator SHAHEEN. I couldn’t agree more fully. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Lancaster. 

Thank you all for testifying. This hearing is closed. 

[Applause.] 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(117) 

XI. ANNEX 2.—MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD DURING

TESTIMONY

LETTER FROM THE JEWISH DISABILITY NETWORK

118 

LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNCILS

ON DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

119 

LETTER FROM PRESIDENT GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH

120 

121 

SUPPLEMENTAL LIST PROVIDED BY EVE HILL IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION FROM

SENATOR JAMES RISCH DURING HER TESTIMONY

122 

123 

124 

125 

126 

LETTER TO SENATOR JOHN KERRY AND ALSO SENT TO RICHARD LUGAR FROM

VETERANS AND MILITARY ORGANIZATIONS

MAY 30, 2012. 

Hon. JOHN KERRY, 

Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN KERRY: We the undersigned veterans and military organizations 

are writing to urge the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to favorably report the 

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). 

The CRPD is important to veterans and servicemembers with disabilities because 

it embodies the principles of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Like the 

ADA, the CRPD supports equal treatment and non-discrimination in access to rehabilitation, employment and educational opportunities. We support the principles of 

the ADA because it promotes empowerment of our nation’s veterans and servicemembers with disabilities by providing the opportunity to achieve independent living and inclusion into all aspects of society. 

As organizations that represent veterans and servicemembers and their families, 

we believe that the CRPD would remove barriers and allow American servicemembers and veterans with disabilities to work, serve, study, and live abroad. In 

part, barriers will be diminished due to changing attitudes around the world regarding people with disabilities. As a result of the changes occurring through the CRPD, 

servicemembers and veterans with disabilities will be able to continue leading active 

lives within the global community. 

The United States must ratify the CRPD to reinforce our leadership in the promotion of opportunities for veterans and servicemembers with disabilities in the 

world community. Our nation established its leadership on disability rights through 

the passage of the ADA. In order to continue that leadership, the United States 

must once again act to promote the rights of people with disabilities. 

We appreciate your leadership on this issue and urge swift ratification of the 

CRPD to ensure global disability rights. If you have any questions, please contact 

Heather Ansley, Vice President of Veterans Policy for VetsFirst, a program of 

United Spinal Association, at (202) 556–2076, ext. 7702 or by e-mail at 

hansley@vetsfirst.org. 

Sincerely, 

AMVETS; Air Force Sergeants Association; Air Force Women Officers 

Associated; American GI Forum; Association of the United States 

Navy; Blinded Veterans Association; Disabled American Veterans; 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; Jewish War Veterans; 

127 

Military Officers Association of America; National Association for 

Black Veterans; National Guard Association of the United States; 

National Military Family Association; Paralyzed Veterans of America; The American Legion; Veterans for Common Sense; Veterans of 

Foreign Wars; Veterans of Modern Warfare; VetsFirst, a program of 

United Spinal Association; Vietnam Veterans of America; Wounded 

Warrior Project. 

(129) 

XII ANNEX 3.—ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED

FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF JUDITH HEUMANN TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY

Question. Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention states that ‘‘[r]eservations 

incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted.’’ Does the administration believe that the three reservations it has proposed 

are compatible with the object and purpose of the Disabilities Convention? 

Answer. Yes. The United States has a comprehensive network of existing Federal 

and State disability laws and enforcement mechanisms. In the majority of cases, existing Federal and State law meet or exceed the requirements of the Convention. 

The proposed reservations make it clear that, in the narrow circumstances that federalism or private conduct concerns are implicated, the United States has limited 

its obligations on the international plane to those that can be implemented under 

existing law appropriate to our Federal structure. 

Question. The administration has proposed three reservations to the Convention. 

Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention states that ‘‘[r]eservations incompatible 

with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted.’’ 

• Have any Parties to the Convention joined the Convention subject to reservations similar to those that the administration has proposed? If so, please 

describe them. • Have other Parties to the Convention lodged objections to those reservations? 

If so, please describe how, if at all, this impacts the legality under international 

law of the reservation that the administration has proposed. 

Answer. Other States Parties have not taken reservations similar to those proposed by the administration. 

RESPONSES OF EVE HILL TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY

Question. In his written testimony submitted to the Committee, Dr. Michael 

Farris asserts that if the United States were to become party to the Disabilities 

Convention, it would ‘‘require[ ] radical changes to American law.’’ Does the administration agree with this assertion? 

Answer. No. With the proposed reservations, understandings, and declaration, the 

United States would be able to implement its obligations under the Disabilities Convention using the existing laws, regulations, and Federal enforcement mechanisms 

that afford protection and guarantees of nondiscrimination to persons with disabilities. Therefore, no new legislation, regulation, or enforcement mechanisms would 

be required to ratify and implement the Disabilities Convention. 

Question. In his written testimony submitted to the Committee, Dr. Michael 

Farris asserts that, ‘‘[t]oday, under the IDEA parents get to decide what they think 

is best for their child—including the right to walk away from government services 

and provide private or home education. Under the UNCRPD, that right is supplanted with the rule announced by Professor van Buren. Government officials have 

the authority to substitute their views for the views of parents as well as the views 

of the child as to what is best. If the parents think that private schools are best 

for their child, the UNCRPD gives the government the authority and the legal duty 

to override that judgment and keep the child in the government-approved program 

that the officials think is best for the child.’’ Does the administration agree with this 

interpretation of the Convention? 

Answer. No. In light of the federalism and private conduct reservations and the 

nondiscrimination understanding, no changes to Federal, State or local law regarding the ability of parents in the United States to make decisions about how to raise 

and educate their children would be required as a result of ratification. Furthermore, the recommended understanding on economic, social, and cultural rights 

130 

makes clear that in the context of the education of a disabled child, the obligation 

of the United States under the Convention with regard to consideration of the principle of ‘‘best interests’’ is limited to nondiscrimination. 

Question. In his written testimony submitted to the Committee, Dr. Michael 

Farris asserts that, ‘‘[a]ny and all parental rights provisions in state education laws 

will be void by the direct application of Article 7 of this treaty. Government—not 

parents—has the authority to decide what is best for children.’’ Does the administration agree with this assertion? 

Answer. No. Parental rights provisions in Federal and State education laws will 

not be voided by Article 7 of the Disabilities Convention. In light of the federalism 

and private conduct reservations and the nondiscrimination understanding, no 

changes to Federal, State or local law regarding the ability of parents in the United 

States to make decisions about how to raise and educate their children would be 

required as a result of ratification. 

Question. In his written testimony submitted to the Committee, Dr. Michael 

Farris asserts that, ‘‘[e]ven with the presumption of the non-self-executing nature 

of the treaty, if the Senate ratifies this treaty, Congress will have the duty to revise 

the IDEA to comply with the provisions of the UNCRPD. Therefore, unless we intend to breach our international legal obligations, Congress will be required to modify the IDEA to ensure that government decisionmakers, and not parents, have the 

final say as to what they believe is best for a child.’’ Does the administration agree 

with this assertion? 

Answer. No. Ratification of the Disabilities Convention will not require Congress 

to modify existing law to provide that government decisionmakers, and not parents, 

have the final say regarding the best interests of a child. With the proposed package 

of reservations, understandings, and a declaration, ratification of the Disabilities 

Convention will not require any revision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or any other U.S. law or regulation. In light of the federalism and private 

conduct reservations and the nondiscrimination understanding, no changes to Federal, State or local law regarding the ability of parents in the United States to make 

decisions about how to raise and educate their children would be required as a 

result of ratification. 

In addition, the non-self-executing declaration is not a ‘‘presumption’’ but, as 

stated in the Secretary’s Report (Treaty Doc. 112–7, pp. 3 and 82), provides that the 

Convention would not be directly enforceable by U.S. courts or itself give rise to individually enforceable rights. The Supreme Court treated a non-self-executing declaration as dispositive in the case of Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 728, 

735 (2004). 

Question. In his written testimony submitted to the Committee, Dr. Michael 

Farris asserts that, ’’Article 25(a) [of the Convention] commits the United States to 

providing free abortion services to persons with disabilities.’’ Does the administration agree with this interpretation of the Convention? 

Answer. No. The Convention is a nondiscrimination instrument that simply provides what the Americans with Disabilities Act already requires in the United 

States: that any health care programs and benefits that are provided under domestic law, including those related to ‘‘sexual and reproductive health,’’ also be afforded 

to persons with disabilities on a nondiscriminatory basis. As the Secretary’s report 

makes clear (Treaty Doc. 112–7 page 59–61), the Convention does not make any 

statement about abortion, does not create a right to abortion, and does not promote 

abortion as a method of family planning. The Convention leaves the matter to domestic law. Furthermore, the United States is not bound to implement the Convention through any particular program or funding mechanism. 

RESPONSES AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES OF JUDITH HEUMANN AND EVE HILL TO

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question #1. If the United States became party to the Convention, would the Convention’s obligations apply to conduct of the United States that occurs outside the 

territory of the United States? 

Answer. We do not read the Convention’s obligations to apply to U.S. conduct outside the United States, except insofar as the Convention reaffirms such existing 

extraterritorial obligations as in Article 11. The Convention additionally envisions 

international cooperation measures under Article 32 (which addresses international 

cooperation programs intended to assist foreign governments and individuals with 

disabilities abroad, which the United States has already established through USAID 

131 

and the State Department). U.S. ratification, moreover, would have positive effects 

outside the United States. For example, it would give the United States a critical 

tool in its bilateral and multilateral work to promote the rights of persons with disabilities around the world, and it would enable the United States to use treaty 

mechanisms (such as the Conference of States Parties) to exchange best practices 

and to guide other States Parties in their adoption of laws, policies, and practices 

to implement the Convention. 

Question #2. Apart from the provisions of Article 27 of the Convention, with respect to which the administration has proposed an understanding, would any aspect 

of the convention apply to military operations conducted by the United States? What 

is the assessment of the Department of Defense of the impact of any such application of the convention’s provisions? 

Answer. Article 11 simply reaffirms existing obligations under international law 

to protect persons with disabilities. 

(Clarification): This is not a sufficient answer to Question 2. Please provide more 

detail including an assessment from the Department of Defense. 

(Supplemental Response): The Department of Defense concurs that application of 

the Convention’s provisions, including Article 11, would not have an effect on the 

Department’s military operations conducted outside the United States. Article 11 

reaffirms existing obligations under international law to protect persons with 

disabilities. 

Question #3. Subsection (w) of the convention’s preamble states ‘‘Realizing that 

the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which 

he or she belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the International Bill of Human Rights.’’ 

• What is the ‘‘International Bill of Human Rights’’ referred to in this subsection? 

• Does the administration believe that States have a legal obligation to recognize 

the rights contained in the ‘‘International Bill of Human Rights?’’ If so, what 

is the source of this obligation? 

• Does the administration interpret the convention to impose legal obligations on 

individuals to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized 

in the International Bill of Human Rights? 

• Does the administration interpret any other body of international law, including 

customary international law, to impose legal obligations on individuals to strive 

for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the International 

Bill of Human Rights? 

Answer. The International Bill of Rights refers to the Universal Declaration of 

Human Rights (from which the quoted language in Question 3 is drawn in part), 

which is not a legally binding instrument; the International Covenant on Civil and 

Political Rights, to which the United States is a party; and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which the United States has signed 

but not ratified. States Parties to the legally binding instruments have an obligation 

to recognize the rights contained in such instruments, as ratified by them. Neither 

the Disabilities Convention nor any other body of international law imposes legal 

obligations on individuals to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights 

recognized in the International Bill of Human Rights. 

Question #4. What function do the ‘‘General Principles’’ contained in Article 3 of 

the convention serve? Do the provisions of Article 3 give rise to any legal obligations 

independent of the convention’s more specific provisions directed to the conduct of 

States Parties? 

Answer. As stated in the Secretary of State’s Report (page 9 of Treaty Doc. 112– 

7), the General Principles in Article 3 set forth the overarching and animating objectives of the convention. Article 3 does not give rise to any legal obligations independent of the convention’s more specific provisions directed to the conduct of States 

Parties. 

Question #5. Article 4 provides that ‘‘States parties undertake to ensure and promote the full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind on the basis of disability.’’ 

What are the particular ‘‘human rights and fundamental freedoms’’ to which the 

obligations in this article apply? 

Answer. Article 4 imposes an obligation of nondiscrimination on the basis of disability with respect to the human rights and fundamental freedoms set out in 

human rights treaties ratified by the United States. These include the International 

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention for the Elimination of All 

132 

Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention Against Torture and other 

Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 

Question #6. The Message from the President transmitting the convention describes a number of existing U.S. Government programs that promote the development and dissemination of mobility aids, devices, and assistive technologies. The 

Message indicates that these programs are consistent with the obligations contained 

in Articles 4(1)(f), (g), and (h) of the convention. Would the convention obligate the 

United States to continue these programs in their current form or prohibit the 

United States from eliminating or reducing funding for them? 

Answer. No. The United States is not bound to implement the convention through 

any particular program or funding mechanism. 

(Clarification): The above response was given for each of the listed questions (#s 

6, 15, 22, 24, 27). More explanation is required for each of these questions. 

(Supplemental Response): As stated in the Secretary of State’s Report (page 12 

of Treaty Doc. 112–7), Article 4(1)(f), (g) and (h) are implemented through a variety 

of programs and mechanisms. Ratification of the Convention would not bind the 

United States to implement through these or any other particular program or funding mechanism. For example, a wide variety of U.S. programs provide funding for 

the acquisition of assistive devices. These programs include the Department of 

Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Medicare and Medicaid programs, ED’s Centers 

for Independent Living programs, and the Social Security Administration’s SSI/ 

SSDI programs, as well as vocational rehabilitation programs, educational programs 

under IDEA, and programs offered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In 

addition, the HHS-backed Protection and Advocacy (P&A) Assistive Technology program provides support and advocacy services to individuals with disabilities on 

assistive technology issues. Other key Federal agencies, including the EEOC and 

DOT, conduct extensive training efforts to diverse audiences. ED’s NIDRR relies on 

its Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers network to conduct technical assistance and operates the ADA National Network, a national network of 10 

regional ADA Centers, to provide training, referrals, and resources to businesses, 

employers, government entities, and individuals with disabilities, as well as media 

and news reporters. 

Question #7. Under Article 4(2), States undertake to take measures ‘‘to the maximum extent of [their] available resources . . . with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of’’ economic, social and cultural rights. Other articles of 

the convention address specific economic and social rights, including with respect to 

education, health, work and employment, adequate standard of living and social 

protection, and participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport. 

The administration has proposed an understanding regarding these articles to the 

effect that the obligations of the United States in respect of such economic, social, 

and cultural rights ‘‘are to prevent discrimination on the basis of disability in the 

provision of any such rights insofar as they are recognized and implemented under 

U.S. Federal Law.’’ 

• What particular economic, social, and cultural rights does the administration 

understand to be recognized and implemented under U.S. Federal Law such 

that the United States would encounter treaty obligations in relation to them 

if the convention were ratified subject to the proposed understanding? 

• To the extent that the United States does not recognize or implement particular 

economic, social, or cultural rights referred to in the convention, would the 

United States be obligated to report to the Committee on the Rights of Persons 

with Disabilities on its policies or practices with respect to such nonrecognized 

rights? 

Answer. The obligations of the United States under the convention with respect 

to these rights would be limited to nondiscrimination, similar to the obligation 

already undertaken by the United States in Article 5(e) of the Convention for the 

Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). CERD Article 5(e) provides that States Parties undertake to ‘‘eliminate racial discrimination . . . in the 

enjoyment of the following rights: 

(e) Economic, social and cultural rights, in particular 

(i) The right to work, to free choice of employment . . . ; 

(ii) The right to form and join trade unions; 

(iii) The right to housing; 

(iv) The right to public health, medical care, social security and social services; 

(v) The right to education and training; 

133 

(vi) The right to equal participation in cultural activities;’’ 

The Disabilities Convention would create no new rights in the United States nor 

would it require the United States to recognize any new rights. Under the recommended nondiscrimination Understanding, ratification would not require any 

changes in the provision of, or access to, education, housing, health care, employment, social security and other social benefits, and cultural activities in the United 

States. 

With regard to reporting, Article 35 obliges a State Party to submit a comprehensive report on measures taken to give effect to its obligations under the convention. 

The United States would address its implementation of the convention’s 

nondiscrimniation obligation in its report. 

Question #8. The Message from the President transmitting the convention states 

that ‘‘the United States has not yet become a party to the [Covenant on Economic, 

Social, and Cultural Rights].’’ Does the administration support U.S. accession to the 

Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights? 

Answer. As indicated in the current Treaty Priority List, the administration does 

not seek action on the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at this 

time. 

(Clarification): What is the administration’s position on the Covenant, and will the 

administration use the Disabilities Convention to bolster the case for becoming a 

party to any treaty or agreement referenced therein to which the United States is 

currently not a party? 

(Supplemental Response): The administration does not seek Senate action on the 

International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. As to treaties 

which the United States has not ratified, the administration assesses each treaty 

on its own merits, and lists in its Treaty Priority List those treaties for which the 

Department seeks action at this time. Because the administration seeks the Senate’s advice and consent to ratification of treaties on a case-by-case basis, ratification of the Disabilities Convention does not bolster the case for ratification of other 

treaties. 

Question #9. Article 4(3) provides that ‘‘States Parties shall closely consult with 

and actively involve persons with disabilities, including children with disabilities, 

through their representative organizations’’ in the development and implementation 

of laws and policies to implement the convention and in other decisionmaking processes concerning issues related to persons with disabilities. 

• (9a) Would this provision apply to Congress so as to require it to follow particular procedures when drafting and acting on legislation related to persons 

with disabilities? 

Answer. No. Ratification of the convention will not require Congress to alter its 

procedures when drafting and acting on legislation related to persons with disabilities. The United States democratic legislative process affords disability rights organizations, family members, concerned citizens and persons with disabilities an 

opportunity to make their voices heard at the Federal, State, and local levels of government throughout the legislative process. 

• (9b) Is the United States currently a party to any treaty that contains similar 

obligations to consult with specific groups when making laws, policies, or other 

governmental decisions? 

Answer. Yes. The United States has become a party to agreements that require 

consultations with or participation by stakeholders. For example, the United States 

is a party to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Article 5 of 

this advice and consent treaty provides, in part: 

In addition to their obligations pursuant to article 4, affected country 

Parties [which include the United States] undertake to: 

* * * * * 

(d) promote awareness and facilitate the participation of local populations, particularly women and youth, with the support of nongovernmental organizations, in efforts to combat desertification and mitigate the 

effects of drought. . . . 

The International Convention Relating To Intervention On The High Seas In 

Cases Of Oil Pollution Casualties, which concerns oil spills from ships, provides 

another example. Article I of this advice and consent treaty provides that States 

Parties may take necessary measures on the high seas ‘‘to prevent, mitigate or 

eliminate grave and imminent danger to their coastline or related interests from 

134 

pollution or threat of pollution of the sea by oil, following upon a maritime casualty 

or acts related to such a casualty, which may reasonably be expected to result in 

major harmful consequences.’’ Article III then provides, in part: 

(b) the coastal State shall notify without delay the proposed measures to 

any persons physical or corporate known to the coastal State, or made 

known to it during the consultations, to have interests which can reasonably be expected to be affected by those measures. The coastal State shall 

take into account any views they may submit. . . . 

In addition, free trade agreements, which are approved by the Congress, and bilateral investment treaties, which are advice and consent treaties, generally contain 

transparency provisions that call on States Parties to provide interested persons a 

reasonable opportunity to comment on proposed laws, regulations, procedures and 

administrative rulings. 

Moreover, as described in the Secretary’s report transmitted to the Senate with 

the convention, the U.S. democratic legislative process, Americans with Disabilities 

Act requirements on public organizations, and the public notice and comment process for regulations would all provide for U.S. compliance with Article 4(3) of the convention without the need to alter U.S. laws, regulations or practice. 

Question #10. The administration has proposed a reservation to the convention indicating that, to the extent that U.S. State and local governments exercise jurisdiction over matters governed by the convention, the obligations of the United States 

under the convention would be limited to ‘‘the Federal Government’s taking measures appropriate to the Federal system, which may include enforcement action 

against State and local actions that are inconsistent with the Constitution, the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, or other Federal laws, with the objective of fully 

implementing the convention.’’ 

The President’s Message transmitting the convention observes that, in some areas 

covered by the convention that are governed by U.S. State and local law, ‘‘some 

State and local standards are less vigorous than the convention would require.’’ 

• (10a) Please describe the particular instances in which the administration believes that relevant State and local standards ‘‘are less rigorous than the convention would require.’’ 

Answer. This answer responds to Question 10 as well as Questions 18, 20, 23, 25, 

and 26. 

The areas in which State and local standards may be less rigorous than the convention’s requirements are narrow. The administration’s principal questions regarding State and local standards relate to Articles 12, regarding guardianship, and 

Article 14, regarding civil commitment. See Treaty Doc. 112.7 at pages 31 through 

34 (regarding Article 12) and pages 36 through 39 (regarding Article 14). The Secretary’s Report also identifies questions regarding Article 23 on respect for home 

and the family, including those arising from guardianship determinations. See id., 

at pages 53 through 55 (regarding Article 23). With respect to Article 19 on living 

independently and being included in the community and Article 24 on education, the 

administration did not specify in the Secretary’s Report concerns arising regarding 

State or local laws because the requirements of Federal law on nondiscrimination 

under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the administration’s 

Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) enforcement largely obviate resort to State 

law for convention implementation. 

• (10b) With respect to the instances identified in response to the question above, 

please describe the measures the administration would intend to take consistent 

with the proposed federalism reservation to give effect to the convention’s 

requirements. 

Answer. The administration’s questions about State and local law being less rigorous than the convention’s requirements have arisen with respect to narrow areas 

of law and in limited circumstances. In most cases, Federal law, which will implement the requirements of the Disabilities Convention if ratified, requires State and 

local governments to take remedial measure to bring their laws into compliance 

with Federal law, such as the Federal Government’s efforts under Olmstead. The 

administration proposes a federalism reservation to address the small gaps in implementation at the State and local level that are currently beyond the reach of Federal enforcement. The federalism reservation protects our Federal system, ensuring 

that the Federal Government is not required to adopt any new laws or engage in 

any new enforcement efforts to fill these gaps. 

Question #11. Upon ratifying the convention, El Salvador made the following reservation: ‘‘The Government of the Republic of El Salvador signs the present ConvenVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
135 

tion on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol thereto, 

adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 13 December 2006, to the 

extent that its provisions do not prejudice or violate the provisions of any of the precepts, principles and norms enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of El Salvador, particularly in its enumeration of principles.’’ 

Several other parties to the convention have objected to El Salvador’s reservation 

as being inconsistent with the object and purpose of the convention. 

• (11a) What is El Salvador’s status as a party to the convention in light of its 

reservation and the objections to it? 

Answer. El Salvador is a party to the convention and has treaty relations with 

all of the States Parties to the convention. Although some States Parties to the convention have objected to El Salvador’s reservation, none of these States Parties has 

declined to enter into treaty relations with El Salvador. 

• (11b) Does the administration regard El Salvador’s reservation as inconsistent 

with the convention’s object and purpose, or with international law regarding 

reservations to treaties? 

Answer. International law provides that States Parties may object to other Parties’ reservations to treaties, including on the basis that such reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. The convention itself provides 

in Article 46(1) that reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the 

convention are not permitted. The convention also provides that reservations may 

be withdrawn at any time. Because the United States is not a party, we have not 

taken a position on El Salvador’s reservation. If the Senate grants its advice and 

consent to ratification, the United States will have an opportunity to do so upon 

ratification. 

Question #12. Article 6(1) provides that States shall take measures to ensure the 

full and equal enjoyment by women and girls with disabilities ‘‘of all human rights 

and fundamental freedoms.’’ What are the particular ‘‘human rights and fundamental freedoms’’ to which the obligations in this article apply? 

Answer. Article 6(1) prohibits discrimination against women and girls with a disability with respect to the human rights and fundamental freedoms set out in 

human rights treaties ratified by a State Party. For the United States, these include 

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against 

Torture, and the Race Convention. 

Question #13. Article 7(2) provides that ‘‘In all actions concerning children with 

disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.’’ 

In discussing the implementation of this provision, the President’s Message transmitting the convention observes that ‘‘Titles II and III of the ADA protect children 

with disabilities from discrimination by public entities and public accommodations,’’ 

and describes enforcement of these laws by the Department of Justice. 

• Does the administration interpret the reference in Article 7(2) to ‘‘all actions 

concerning children’’ as applying only to situations involving discrimination? If 

not, please indicate in what other contexts Article 7(2)’s requirements have potential application and describe the measures the administration believes would 

be necessary to give effect to Article 7(2) in such contexts. 

Answer. Any United States obligation under Article 7(2) would be limited to nondiscrimination, including with regard to education, where nondiscrimination is guaranteed under U.S. law by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. The recommended Understanding on economic, social, and cultural rights makes clear that in the context of the education of a disabled child, the obligation of the United States under the convention with regard 

to consideration of the principle of ‘‘best interests’’ is limited to nondiscrimination. 

(Clarification): Please provide more information in response to this question. 

(Supplemental Response): In light of the proposed federalism and private conduct 

reservations and the nondiscrimination understanding, no changes to Federal, State 

or local law regarding the ability of parents in the United States to make decisions 

about how to raise and educate their children would be required as a result of ratification. With the proposed RUD package, ratification of the Disabilities Convention 

will not require any revision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or 

any other U.S. law or regulation. In particular, ratification will not require Congress 

to modify existing law to affect consideration of the principle of best interests or to 

provide that government decisionmakers, and not parents, have the final say regarding the best interests of a child. In short, existing Federal State and local law 

provide adequate protection to the interest of parents to do what they think is best 

for their children and the Convention will not disturb that complex of laws. 

136 

Question #14. Article 7(3) provides that ‘‘States Parties shall ensure that children 

with disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting 

them, their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, 

on an equal basis with other children.’’ 

• What actor or actors are responsible for determining the weight to be given to 

the views of children with disabilities as described in Article 7(3)? 

Answer. In light of the proposed federalism and private conduct reservations, to 

the extent that under domestic law actors determining the weight of views of children with disabilities include State or local governments or parents, there would be 

no change to Federal, State or local law as a result of ratification. 

Question #15. The Message from the President transmitting the convention describes a number of existing U.S. Government programs that promote the design, 

development, and distribution of accessible information and communications technologies and systems. The Message indicates that these programs are consistent 

with the obligations contained in Article 9(2)(h) of the convention. Would the convention obligate the United States to continue these programs in their current form 

or prohibit the United States from eliminating or reducing funding for them? 

Answer. No. The United States is not bound to implement the convention through 

any particular program or funding mechanism. 

(Supplemental Response): As stated in the Secretary of State’s Report (page 25 

of Treaty Doc. 112–7), Article 9(2)(h) is implemented through a variety of programs 

and mechanisms. Ratification of the Convention would not bind the United States 

to implement through these or any other particular program or funding mechanism. 

For example, with respect to promoting access to, and development of, new information and technologies, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires Federal 

agencies to make their electronic and information technology accessible to persons 

with disabilities, has resulted in the development of new technologies for accessible 

information. The Access Board has issued ‘‘Electronic and Information Technology 

Standards,’’ see 39 C.F.R. § Pt. 1194. The ATA targeted the removal of environmental barriers and increased access to assistive and universally designed technologies. See 29 U.S.C. § 3001(b)(1). Other government initiatives, e.g., the Interagency Council on Disability-Related Statistics, promote public-private partnerships 

and research opportunities to develop and make available assistive technologies. 

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 

1996, 47 U.S.C. §§ 251(a)(2) and 255, requires manufacturers of telecommunications 

equipment and providers of telecommunications services to ensure that such equipment and services are accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities, if readily 

achievable. The FCC oversees five programs that help to ensure access to assistive 

technology, including: closed captioning of video programming; access to emergency 

information in video programming; Telecommunications Relay Services; access to 

telecommunications services and equipment; and hearing aid compatibility for 

telephones. 

Question #16. Article 11 provides that ‘‘States Parties shall take, in accordance 

with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian 

law and international human rights law, all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including situations of armed conflict . . . ’’ 

• Does the administration interpret the convention to apply to the conduct of U.S. 

military personnel participating in armed conflict in Afghanistan or elsewhere? 

If not, why not? 

Answer. Article 11 reaffirms existing obligations of States Parties under international law. In this regard, Article 11 is also consistent with DOD Directive 

2311.01E, The Department of Defense Law of War Program, which requires that 

members of DOD components comply with the law of war during all armed conflict, 

and in all other military operations. 

Question #17. Article 12(4) provides that ‘‘States Parties shall ensure that all 

measures that relate to the exercise of legal capacity provide for appropriate and 

effective safeguards to prevent abuse in accordance with international human rights 

law.’’ 

• What are the relevant rules of ‘‘international human rights law’’ referred to in 

Article 12(4) and what is the source of these rules? 

Answer. For the United States, the International Covenant on Civil and Political 

Rights would be relevant as well as the Convention Against Torture. 

137 

Question #18. The Message from the President transmitting the convention states 

in connection with its discussion of Article 12 that ‘‘many State constitutions and 

statutory provisions continue to limit the full exercise of civil and political rights 

of persons deemed incompetent.’’ 

• (18a) Please identify any State constitution or statutory provisions in this regard that the administration believes would be inconsistent with the obligations 

contained in the convention. 

Answer. The response to Question 10 also applies to Question 18. 

The administration closely studied measures of implementation of the Disabilities 

Convention, and identified that its principal questions regarding State and local 

compliance relate to Articles 12, regarding guardianship, and Article 14, regarding 

civil commitment. The Secretary’s Report identifies specific concerns regarding State 

law arising under those Articles, including discussion of particular States. See 

Treaty Doc. 112.7 at pages 31 through 34 (regarding Article 12) and pages 36 

through 39 (regarding Article 14). The Secretary’s Report also identifies concerns regarding Article 23 on Respect for home and the family, including those arising from 

guardianship determinations. See id., at pages 53 through 55 (regarding Article 23). 

With respect to Article 19 on Living independently and being included in the community and Article 24 on Education, the administration did not specify in the Secretary’s Report concerns arising regarding State or local laws because the requirements of Federal law on nondiscrimination under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act and the administration’s Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) enforcement largely obviate resort to State law for convention implementation. 

• (18b) With respect to the provisions identified in response to the question above, 

please describe the measures the administration would intend to take consistent 

with the proposed federalism reservation to give effect to the convention’s 

requirements. 

Answer. The administration’s concerns about State and local law being inconsistent with the obligations in the convention’s have arisen with respect to narrow 

areas of law and in limited circumstances. In most cases, Federal law, which will 

implement the requirements of the Disabilities Convention if ratified, requires State 

and local governments to take remedial measure to bring their laws into compliance 

with Federal law, such as the Federal Government’s efforts under Olmstead v. L.C., 

527 U.S. 581 (1999). The administration proposes a federalism reservation to address the small gaps in implementation at the State and local level that are currently beyond the reach of Federal enforcement. The federalism reservation protects 

our Federal system, ensuring that the Federal Government is not required to adopt 

any new laws or engage in any new enforcement efforts to fill these gaps. 

Question #19. Article 14(2) provides that ‘‘States Parties shall ensure that if persons with disabilities are deprived of the liberty through any process, they are, on 

an equal basis with others, entitled to guarantees in accordance with international 

human rights law and shall be treated in compliance with the objectives and principles of the present convention, including by provision of reasonable accommodation.’’ What are the relevant rules of ‘‘international human rights law’’ referred to 

in Article 14(2) and what is the source of these rules? 

Answer. The relevant rules of international human rights law are contained in 

the treaties on human rights ratified by the State Party. For the United States, the 

provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture would be relevant. 

Question #20. The Message from the President transmitting the convention states 

in connection with its discussion of Article 14 that ‘‘Although State laws generally 

have adopted heightened due process protections for persons with disabilities facing 

deprivations of their liberty, gaps remain.’’ 

• (20a) Please identify any State laws in this regard that the administration believes would be inconsistent with the obligations contained in the convention. 

Answer. The response to Question 18 also applies to Question 20. 

The administration closely studied measures of implementation of the Disabilities 

Convention, and identified that its principal questions regarding State and local 

compliance relate to Articles 12, regarding guardianship, and Article 14, regarding 

civil commitment. The Secretary’s Report identifies specific questions regarding 

State law arising under those Articles, including discussion of particular States. See 

Treaty Doc. 112.7 at pages 31 through 34 (regarding Article 12) and pages 36 

through 39 (regarding Article 14). The Secretary’s Report also identifies questions 

regarding Article 23 on respect for home and the family, including those arising 

from guardianship determinations. See id., at pages 53 through 55 (regarding ArtiVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
138 

cle 23). With respect to Article 19 on living independently and being included in the 

community and Article 24 on education, the administration did not specify in the 

Secretary’s Report questions arising regarding State or local laws because the requirements of Federal law on nondiscrimination under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Administration’s Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) 

enforcement largely obviate resort to State law for convention implementation. 

• (20b) With respect to the laws identified in response to the question above, 

please describe the measures the administration would intend to take consistent 

with the proposed federalism reservation to give effect to the convention’s 

requirements. 

Answer. The administration’s questions about State and local law being inconsistent with the obligations in the convention have arisen with respect to narrow 

areas of law and in limited circumstances. In most cases, Federal law, which will 

implement the requirements of the Disabilities Convention if ratified, requires State 

and local governments to take remedial measure to bring their laws into compliance 

with Federal law, such as the Federal Government’s efforts under Olmstead v. L.C., 

527 U.S. 581 (1999). The administration proposes a federalism reservation to address the small gaps in implementation at the State and local level that are currently beyond the reach of Federal enforcement. The federalism reservation protects 

our Federal system, ensuring that the Federal Government is not required to adopt 

any new laws or engage in any new enforcement efforts to fill these gaps. 

Question #21. The Message from the President transmitting the convention proposes a reservation to Article 15, which addresses freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The proposed reservation would 

make the obligations of the United States under Article 15 subject to the same reservations and understandings that apply for the United States with respect to provisions of the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil 

and Political Rights that contain comparable obligations. 

• Apart from the substantive obligations under Article 15 addressed by the administration’s proposed understanding, will the United States incur obligations 

to report on its compliance with Article 15 to the Committee on the Rights of 

Persons with Disabilities separately from reporting it currently makes to committees under the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant 

on Civil and Political Rights? 

Answer. The United States would address Article 15 in its report submitted under 

Article 35 of the Disabilities Convention, and would expect that any discussion of 

Article 15 in that report would rely heavily on relevant sections of any recent reports submitted pursuant to the Convention Against Torture and the International 

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 

Question #22. The Message from the President transmitting the convention describes a number of existing U.S. Government programs that monitor facilities and 

programs designed to serve persons with disabilities with a view to preventing exploitation, violence, or abuse. The Message indicates that these programs are consistent with the obligations contained in Article 16(3) of the convention. 

• Would the convention obligate the United States to continue these programs in 

their current form or prohibit the United States from eliminating or reducing 

funding for them? 

Answer. No. The United States is not bound to implement the convention through 

any particular program or funding mechanism. 

(Supplemental Response): As stated in the Secretary of State’s Report (page 42 

of Treaty Doc. 112–7), Article 16(3) is implemented through a variety of programs 

and mechanisms. Ratification of the Convention would not bind the United States 

to implement through these or any other particular program or funding mechanism. 

For example, Article 16(3) requires effective monitoring by independent authorities 

to prevent freedom from exploitation, violence, and abuse. DOJ’s enforcement of 

CRIPA allows it to independently monitor persons with disabilities held in a wide 

variety of institutional settings, identify any ongoing abuses, and mandate corrective measures to address any abuse, exploitation, or violence. Additionally, Protection and Advocacy (P&A) systems in each state are created by Federal law to monitor, review, and protect rights of individuals to be free from exploitation, violence, 

and abuse. HHS funds and monitors this comprehensive network of Protection and 

Advocacy programs in each state that are authorized to investigate incidents of 

abuse and neglect of persons with disabilities and follow up reports of incidents or 

investigate if there is probable cause to believe that such incidents have occurred. 

HHS’s Administration on Aging operates a number of Vulnerable Elder Rights ProVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
139 

grams that provide important protections against exploitation and abuse of seniors, 

including those with disabilities. HHS’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has initiated efforts to reduce and ultimately eliminate seclusion and restraint procedures in behavioral health care settings through 

evaluation of effective reduction practices, planning and implementation grants, and 

policy development. 

Question #23. The Message from the President transmitting the convention states 

in connection with its discussion of Article 19 that ‘‘although individual States and 

localities are in varying degrees of compliance with the array of Federal laws that 

address Article 19, there continues to be progress and refinement in approaches to 

achieve full compliance, and DOJ along with other Federal agencies remain vigilant 

in ensuring such compliance.’’ 

• (23a) Please identify any State or local practices in this regard that the administration believes would be inconsistent with the obligations contained in the 

convention. 

Answer. The response to Question 18 also applies to Question 23. 

The administration closely studied measures of implementation of the Disabilities 

Convention, and identified that its principal questions regarding State and local 

compliance relate to Articles 12, regarding guardianship, and Article 14, regarding 

civil commitment. The Secretary’s Report identifies specific concerns regarding State 

law arising under those Articles, including discussion of particular States. See 

Treaty Doc. 112.7 at pages 31 through 34 (regarding Article 12) and pages 36 

through 39 (regarding Article 14). The Secretary’s Report also identifies questions 

regarding Article 23 on respect for home and the family, including those arising 

from guardianship determinations. See id., at pages 53 through 55 (regarding Article 23). With respect to Article 19 on living independently and being included in the 

community and Article 24 on education, the administration did not specify in the 

Secretary’s Report questions arising regarding State or local laws because the requirements of Federal law on nondiscrimination under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the administration’s Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) 

enforcement largely obviate resort to State law for convention implementation. 

• (23b) With respect to the laws identified in response to the question above, 

please describe the measures the administration would intend to take consistent 

with the proposed federalism reservation to give effect to the convention’s 

requirements. 

Answer. The administration’s questions about State and local law being inconsistent with the obligations contained in the convention have arisen with respect to 

narrow areas of law and in limited circumstances. In most cases, Federal law, which 

will implement the requirements of the Disabilities Convention if ratified, requires 

State and local governments to take remedial measure to bring their laws into compliance with Federal law, such as the Federal Government’s efforts under Olmstead 

v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). The administration proposes a federalism reservation 

to address the small gaps in implementation at the State and local level that are 

currently beyond the reach of Federal enforcement. The federalism reservation protects our Federal system, ensuring that the Federal Government is not required to 

adopt any new laws or engage in any new enforcement efforts to fill these gaps. 

Question #24. The Message from the President transmitting the convention describes a number of existing U.S. Government programs that provide funding for the 

acquisition of assistive devices. The Message indicates that these programs would 

give effect to the obligations contained in Article 20 of the convention. 

• Would the convention obligate the United States to continue these programs in 

their current form or prohibit the United States from eliminating or reducing 

funding for them? 

Answer. No. The United States is not bound to implement the convention through 

any particular program or funding mechanism. 

(Supplemental Response): As stated in the Secretary of State’s Report (page 49 

of Treaty Doc. 112–7), Article 20 is implemented through a variety of programs and 

mechanisms. Ratification of the Convention would not bind the United States to implement through these or any other particular program or funding mechanism. For 

example, a wide variety of U.S. programs provide funding for the acquisition of 

assistive devices. These programs include Federal Medicaid, Medicare, and Social 

Security SSI/SSDI programs, vocational rehabilitation programs, which provide a 

variety of services and devices for the purpose of assisting adults with disabilities 

to become independently employed, and programs under IDEA, which require school 

districts to provide assistive technology in the context of ensuring that a child with 

140 

disabilities receives a free appropriate public education, regardless of ability. In addition, the United States has many programs that promote the development and dissemination of mobility aids, devices, and assistive technologies. For example, the 

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), a Federal 

agency part of ED, was established to generate, disseminate, and promote new 

knowledge to improve the options available to disabled persons. 

Question #25. The Message from the President transmitting the convention observes that many of the issues addressed by Article 23 of the convention (regarding 

respect for the home and family) are governed by U.S. State law. The message does 

not clearly indicate, however, whether the administration believes that relevant 

U.S. State laws are in full compliance with the requirements of Article 23. 

• (25a) Please identify any State laws in this regard that the administration believes would be inconsistent with the obligations contained in the convention. 

Answer. The response to Question 18 also applies to Question 25. 

The administration closely studied measures of implementation of the Disabilities 

Convention, and identified that its principal questions regarding State and local 

compliance relate to Articles 12, regarding guardianship, and Article 14, regarding 

civil commitment. The Secretary’s Report identifies specific questions regarding 

State law arising under those Articles, including discussion of particular States. See 

Treaty Doc. 112.7 at pages 31 through 34 (regarding Article 12) and pages 36 

through 39 (regarding Article 14). The Secretary’s Report also identifies questions 

regarding Article 23 on respect for home and the family, including those arising 

from guardianship determinations. See id., at pages 53 through 55 (regarding Article 23). With respect to Article 19 on living independently and being included in the 

community and Article 24 on education, the administration did not specify in the 

Secretary’s Report concerns arising regarding State or local laws because the requirements of Federal law on nondiscrimination under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the administration’s Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) 

enforcement largely obviate resort to State law for convention implementation. 

• (25b) With respect to the laws identified in response to the question above, 

please describe the measures the administration would intend to take consistent 

with the proposed federalism reservation to give effect to the convention’s 

requirements. 

Answer. The administration’s questions about State and local law being inconsistent with the obligations contained in the convention have arisen with respect to 

narrow areas of law and in limited circumstances. In most cases, Federal law, which 

will implement the requirements of the Disabilities Convention if ratified, requires 

State and local governments to take remedial measure to bring their laws into compliance with Federal law, such as the Federal Government’s efforts under Olmstead 

v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). The administration proposes a federalism reservation 

to address the small gaps in implementation at the State and local level that are 

currently beyond the reach of Federal enforcement. The federalism reservation protects our Federal system, ensuring that the Federal Government is not required to 

adopt any new laws or engage in any new enforcement efforts to fill these gaps. 

Question #26. The Message from the President transmitting the convention observes that education in the United States is provided largely by State and local 

governments. The message does not clearly indicate, however, whether the administration believes that relevant U.S. State and local laws and policies are in full compliance with the requirements of Article 24 of the convention, regarding education. 

• (26a) Please identify any State or local laws or policies in this regard that the 

administration believes would be inconsistent with the obligations contained in 

the convention. 

Answer. The response to Question 18 also applies to Question 26. 

The administration closely studied measures of implementation of the Disabilities 

Convention, and identified that its principal questions regarding State and local 

compliance relate to Articles 12, regarding guardianship, and Article 14, regarding 

civil commitment. The Secretary’s Report identifies specific questions regarding 

State law arising under those Articles, including discussion of particular States. See 

Treaty Doc. 112.7 at pages 31 through 34 (regarding Article 12) and pages 36 

through 39 (regarding Article 14). The Secretary’s Report also identifies questions 

regarding Article 23 on respect for home and the family, including those arising 

from guardianship determinations. See id., at pages 53 through 55 (regarding Article 23). With respect to Article 19 on living independently and being included in the 

community and Article 24 on education, the administration did not specify in the 

Secretary’s Report concerns arising regarding State or local laws because the reVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
141 

quirements of federal law on nondiscrimination under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the administration’s Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) 

enforcement largely obviate resort to State law for convention implementation. 

• (26b) With respect to the laws identified in response to the question above, 

please describe the measures the administration would intend to take consistent 

with the proposed federalism reservation to give effect to the convention’s 

requirements. 

Answer. The administration’s questions about State and local law being inconsistent with the obligations contained in the convention have arisen with respect to 

narrow areas of law and in limited circumstances. In most cases, Federal law, which 

will implement the requirements of the Disabilities Convention if ratified, requires 

State and local governments to take remedial measure to bring their laws into compliance with Federal law, such as the Federal Government’s efforts under Olmstead 

v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). The administration proposes a federalism reservation 

to address the small gaps in implementation at the State and local level that are 

currently beyond the reach of Federal enforcement. The federalism reservation protects our Federal system, ensuring that the Federal Government is not required to 

adopt any new laws or engage in any new enforcement efforts to fill these gaps. 

Question #27. The Message from the President transmitting the convention 

describes a number of existing U.S. Government programs that provide funding for 

habilitation and rehabilitation services and programs for persons with disabilities. 

The Message indicates that these programs would give effect to the obligations contained in Article 26 of the convention. 

• Would the convention obligate the United States to continue these programs in 

their current form or prohibit the United States from eliminating or reducing 

funding for them? 

Answer. No. The United States is not bound to implement the convention through 

any particular funding program. 

(Supplemental Response): As stated in the Secretary of State’s Report (page 63 

of Treaty Doc. 112–7), Article 26 is implemented through a variety of programs and 

mechanisms. Ratification of the Convention would not bind the United States to implement through these or any other particular program or funding mechanism. For 

example, the United States has a comprehensive set of habilitation and rehabilitation programs, including the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) State Grants, State 

Independent Living (IL) Services, Centers for Independent Living (CIL), and Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who are Blind (OIB) programs, which 

are authorized under Titles I and VII of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 720 et 

seq., § 796 et seq. The primary purpose of the VR, IL, CIL, and OIB programs is 

to provide the services necessary to enable individuals with disabilities, especially 

those with the most significant disabilities, to become self-sufficient and independent in education, employment, and community settings. 

Question #28. The Message from the President transmitting the convention states 

that the ‘‘conclusions and recommendations of the Committee [on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities] with regard to a State Party’s treaty report, General Comments, Reports, and other documents of the Committee on Disabilities are not binding on the States Parties, and the Committee has no authority to require or compel 

action by the United States under the convention. The United States may accord 

to Committee views and reports and to other Committee documents the weight that 

the United States considers appropriate.’’ 

In its 2010 judgment in the Case Concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of 

Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), the International Court of Justice addressed the weight to be given to the interpretation of a human rights treaty issued 

by the Committee established pursuant to that treaty. 

In explaining its interpretation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in that case, the Court stated: 

‘‘66. The interpretation above is fully corroborated by the jurisprudence 

of the Human Rights Committee established by the Covenant to ensure 

compliance with that instrument by the States parties (see for example, in 

this respect, Maroufidou v. Sweden, No. 58/1979, para. 9.3; Human Rights 

Committee, General Comment No. 15: The position of aliens under the 

Covenant). 

Since it was created, the Human Rights Committee has built up a considerable body of interpretative case law, in particular through its findings in 

response to the individual communications which may be submitted to it in 

142 

respect of States Parties to the first Optional Protocol, and in the form of 

its ‘‘General Comments.’’ 

Although the Court is in no way obliged, in the exercise of its judicial 

functions, to model its own interpretation of the Covenant on that of the 

Committee, it believes that it should ascribe great weight to the interpretation adopted by this independent body that was established specifically to 

supervise the application of that treaty. The point here is to achieve the 

necessary clarity and the essential consistency of international law, as well 

as legal security, to which both the individuals with guaranteed rights and 

the States obliged to comply with treaty obligations are entitled.’’ 

• (a) Does the administration believe that, as a matter of international law, 

States Parties to the convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities must 

accord great weight to the interpretations of the convention issued by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in their own interpretation 

and application of the convention? 

• (b) Does the administration believe that, as a matter of international law, 

States Parties to the convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are 

obligated to conform their interpretations of the convention to those issued by 

the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? 

• (c) Does the administration believe that individuals with rights guaranteed by 

the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are entitled as a matter of international law to ‘‘essential consistency’’ in the convention’s application 

by all States Parties? 

• (d) Does the administration believe that States Parties to the Convention on the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities are entitled as a matter of international law 

to ‘‘essential consistency’’ in the convention’s application by all other States 

Parties? 

Answer. The administration does not believe that the decision of the International 

Court of Justice requires the United States to accord ‘‘great weight’’ to the Committee’s interpretations and views, or to conform its interpretations of the convention 

to those of the Committee. The cited decision of the International Court of Justice 

is not binding on the United States, which was not a party to the proceeding. Nor 

is the United States subject to the jurisdiction of the Court with regard to interpretation or application of the convention. Further, while consistency in application of 

a convention may be desirable, the administration does not believe that either 

States Parties or individuals have a legal right to ‘‘essential consistency’’ in the application of the convention’s provisions by other or all States Parties. 

Question #29. Article 38(a) of the convention provides that the Committee on the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities may invite the specialized agencies of the United 

Nations and other competent bodies as it may consider appropriate to provide expert 

advice on the implementation of the convention in areas falling within the scope of 

their respective mandates. What does the administration consider to be the appropriate scope for participation by U.N. specialized agencies in matters relating to the 

interpretation and application of the convention by States Parties? 

Answer. By the terms of Article 38 of the convention, U.N. specialized agencies 

and other competent bodies may provide expert advice and submit reports on implementation of the convention in areas falling within the scope of their mandates and 

activities. As with the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, such 

agencies or bodies have no authority to require or compel action by the United 

States under the convention. The United States may accord to such advice or reports the weight that the United States considers appropriate. 

RESPONSE OF JUDITH HEUMANN TO QUESTION SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR ROBERT P. CASEY, JR. 

Question. The United States has been a global leader in promoting disability 

rights, and in sharing our expertise gained over decades of pioneering work in improving the lives of disabled persons. Given our already prominent position in this 

field, why is it necessary to become a party to the U.N. Convention on the Rights 

of Persons with Disabilities in order to improve disability rights throughout the 

world? 

Answer. With our extensive domestic experience, the United States is uniquely 

positioned to help interested countries understand how to effectively comply with 

their obligations under the Convention and improve their domestic protections for 

persons with disabilities. However, the fact that we have yet to ratify the DisabilVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:27 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 072394 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 2ND\EXECUTIVE REPORTS\TD112-7.TXT MIKE
143 

ities Convention is frequently raised by foreign officials in bilateral discussions as 

a reason to question the legitimacy of our guidance. This undermines our efforts to 

promote disability rights abroad and deflects from what should be center stage: how 

other nations’ records of promoting disability rights could be improved. 

Ratification of the Convention is increasingly becoming an important factor in the 

U.S. Government’s ability to have meaningful international engagement to promote 

the rights of persons with disabilities. At present we are only able to act as observers at the Disabilities Convention Conference of States Parties. This treaty mechanism offers the most effective vehicle to influence the 116 States Parties to improve 

their protection of disabled people, including disabled Americans abroad. Such an 

approach is also much more efficient than pursuing 116 or more separate bilateral 

arrangements. Our inability to participate as a States Party severely curtails our 

ability to advance U.S. interests. 

Additionally, without ratification we cannot participate in the Committee on the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Although the committee serves in a nonbinding, 

advisory capacity, it has the potential to provide helpful guidance for States Parties 

with little experience in these issues. Through a U.S. citizen presence, we would be 

able to fully leverage expertise in U.S. domestic law and practice, to influence and 

guide the work of the committee. The next election of committee members occurs 

at the Conference of States Parties in September, but unless the United States ratifies it will not be able to participate in the selection process. 

Ratification would also be good for American business. By encouraging other countries to join and implement the Convention, we would also help level the playing 

field to the benefit of U.S. companies that already comply with higher disability 

standards in the United States. Guiding and encouraging improved disability standards abroad would afford U.S. businesses increased opportunities to export innovative products and technologies. As accessibility standards become more harmonized—a business objective that the United States can more credibly support if 

it becomes a State Party—the competitive edge increases for U.S. companies even 

further with the opening of new markets that will need accessibility products provided by U.S. suppliers with expertise in the field. 

RESPONSES OF EVE HILL TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR ROBERT P. CASEY, JR. 

Question. As a pro-life Senator, I am aware of concerns regarding the applicability 

of language in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to 

abortion. How would U.S. ratification of this Convention affect issues related to 

abortion in the United States or abroad? 

Answer. The Convention is a nondiscrimination instrument that simply provides 

what the Americans with Disabilities Act already requires in the United States: 

that any health care programs and benefits that are provided under domestic law 

by a State Party, including those related to ‘‘sexual and reproductive health,’’ also 

be afforded to persons with disabilities on a nondiscriminatory basis. As the Secretary’s report indicates (Treaty Doc. 112–7 page 59–61), the Convention does not 

make any statement about abortion, does not create a right to abortion, and does 

not promote abortion as a method of family planning, leaving the matter to domestic 

law. 

Question. I have become aware of concerns regarding the potential impact of the 

U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on parental decisionmaking. Would U.S. ratification of the Convention affect the rights and ability of 

parents in the United States to make decisions about how to raise their children? 

Answer. No. In light of the federalism and private conduct reservations, among 

others, there would be no change to Federal, State or local law regarding the ability 

of parents in the United States to make decisions about how to raise or educate 

their children as a result of ratification. 

RESPONSES OF JUDITH HEUMANN AND EVE HILL TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR BOB CORKER

Question. Article 7, section 2 states—‘‘In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.’’ This language closely resembles Article 3, section 1 of the U.N. Convention on the Rights 

of the Child. 

144 

• (a) To better understand the impact of this language in Article 7 of the 

UNCRPD, has the Committee on the Rights of the Child—the committee established under that Convention—adopted in any way an interpretation or understanding of this parallel language in Article 3 of UNCRC and what is that 

understanding? 

Answer. The United States has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the 

Rights of the Child (CRC). Even if the United States had ratified the CRC, because 

it is a different instrument, adopted in a different context, the administration would 

not treat the CRC or its committee’s views as more pertinent as guidance than other 

views on interpreting or implementing Article 7 of the Disabilities Convention. 

• (b) If so, could that understanding of the meaning of Article 3 of the UNCRC 

be reasonably expected to also apply to Article 7 of the UNCRPD, or is there 

a substantive distinction to be drawn between the meaning of this similar language in these two conventions? 

Answer. As noted above, Article 3 of the CRC is not more pertinent to the administration’s interpretation of Article 7 of the Disabilities Convention than other international sources. 

Question. Can the conclusions, recommendations, or general comments issued by 

the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities become legally binding in 

any manner through customary international law? 

Answer. Customary international law reflects the widespread and general custom 

and practice of states adhered to out of a sense of legal obligation (‘‘opinio juris et 

necessitatis’’). The committee is not composed of States, and the views of the committee as such, which are nonbinding on States Parties, would not become binding 

under customary international law. Only if a rule reflects the widespread and general custom and practice of States, adhered to out of a sense of legal obligation, does 

it become binding on States as a matter of customary law, with the exception of a 

persistent objector. 

Question. If the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act were repealed, would 

the United States still meet our obligations under the articles of CRPD or would 

more legislation be required? 

Answer. The United States is not obligated to implement the Convention through 

any particular program or funding mechanism and the United States would not 

need to change U.S. legislation to meet the Convention’s requirements. The recommended Understanding on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which specifically references the Convention’s Article 25 on Health, makes clear that in the 

context of health care, the obligation of the United States is limited to nondiscrimination on the basis of disability. Even before this act was passed by Congress, the United States was in a position to be in compliance with the Convention, 

if ratified subject to the Reservations, Understandings, and Declaration in the Secretary’s Report. 

Question. Does ratification of the CRPD create maintenance of effort for our current health care laws? 

Answer. No. The recommended Understanding on Economic Social and Cultural 

Rights, which specifically references the Convention’s Article 25 on Health, makes 

clear that in the context of health care, the obligation of the United States is limited 

to nondiscrimination on the basis of disability, and the United States is not obligated to implement the Convention through any particular program or funding 

mechanism. 

Question. With the Supreme Court decision narrowing the Medicaid requirement 

for States and if some States decide not to expand their Medicaid coverage, will the 

United States still meet all the requirements under the articles of the Convention 

or will more legislation be necessary? 

Answer. The United States would meet the requirements under the Convention, 

if ratified subject to the Reservations, Understandings, and a Declaration in the Secretary’s Report. No additional legislation is necessary because the United States is 

not obligated to implement the Convention through any particular program or funding mechanism. The recommended Understanding on Economic, Social, and Cultural 

Rights underscores that any references in the Convention related to health care and 

services do not create new rights and simply require nondiscrimination on the basis 

of disability in health care. 

145 

RESPONSE OF DR. MICHAEL FARRIS TO QUESTION SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JIM DEMINT

Question. Why do you believe that it is inaccurate to say that the United States 

will not have to enact any new laws or engage in any new spending if we ratify 

this Convention with the administration’s recommended RUDs? 

Answer. It is important to understand the nature of a treaty obligation to come 

to a correct answer to this question. If the United States becomes a party to the 

UNCRPD, it is undertaking a solemn and binding legal obligation to conform its 

laws and actions to the terms of the treaty. ‘‘Every international agreement in force 

is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.’’ Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 321 (American Law Institute 1986). 

Article 4(1)(a) of the UNCRPD provides: 

1. States Parties undertake to ensure and promote the full realization of all 

human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind on the basis of disability. To this end, States Parties undertake: 

a. To adopt all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for 

the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention 

Thus, it is beyond debate that if the United States becomes a party to the 

UNCRPD, we will be required to conform our laws to the requirements of this 

treaty. This fact is true notwithstanding the non-self-executing declaration that 

has been proposed by the administration. The sole effect of that declaration is to 

remove the possibility that the judiciary could directly enforce the provisions of the 

treaty without implementing legislation. It does not in any way relieve the United 

States from its obligation to live up to the terms of the treaty. See, Medellin v. 

Texas, 128 S.Ct. 1346, 1363 (2008). ‘‘The point of a non-self-executing treaty is that 

it ‘addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature 

must execute the contract before it can become a rule for the Court.’ ’’ ‘‘The responsibility for transforming an international obligation arising from a non-self-executing 

treaty into domestic law falls to Congress.’’ Id. at 1368. 

Medellin makes it clear. The United States (through Congress not the courts) 

must comply in good faith with its treaty obligations. 

Once the United States becomes a party to the treaty, the options for Congress 

have been constrained. Assuming that we intend to comply with our treaty obligations, Congress will have some range of choices in how we comply with the terms 

of the treaty but it will no longer have the lawful ability to determine whether we 

should comply with the terms of the treaty. 

As Professor Geraldine van Bueren stated: ‘‘The Convention and other international laws in effect narrows what were previously unfettered discretionary powers of governments. Before governments become party to a human rights treaty they 

are obliged to ensure that there are the resources, either to implement the Convention on becoming party or shortly thereafter, in accordance with international law. 

Hence, there is no interference with national sovereignty, the nationally sovereign 

decisions on how resources on children’s rights to be expended have already been 

taken. In essence, the government has exercised its political powers, and it has to 

live with the legal consequences.1

We should not be confused by the relative inability of the United Nations to forcibly enforce a breach of a treaty obligation with our duty of compliance. It is true 

that the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has no compulsory 

powers which can truly force a member state to comply with its pronouncements. 

However, all such U.N. tribunals consider their pronouncements to be authoritative 

interpretations of the meaning of their relevant treaty and any failure to comply 

with their determinations is considered to be a breach of an international legal obligation. 

It should be remembered that the argument for entering into this treaty is so that 

the United States can be a good example to other nations on how to comply with 

the treaty. If our attitude is ‘‘we comply if and when we want to,’’ then we will show 

the rest of the world that compliance with the dictates of this treaty is truly optional. If we promise nothing more than we want to do, then the other nations gain 

the same ability to comply with only so much of the treaty as they wish to obey. 

The hearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations paid almost no 

attention to the detailed requirements of this treaty. The hearing focused on the 

altruist goals of the treaty—which no one denies are worthy goals. But, virtually 

no attention was given to the detailed requirements of a 50-article treaty. 

146 

Any serious examination of our duty to expend funds would require, for example, 

an examination of the provisions of Article 32. The multiple requirements of this 

Article include ‘‘international development programmes’’ and ‘‘technical and economic assistance.’’ These obligations are echoed by the provision of Article 4(2) 

which provides: 

With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, each State Party undertakes to take measures to the maximum of its available resources and, 

where needed, within the framework of international cooperation, with a 

view to achieving progressively the full realization of these rights, without 

prejudice to those obligations contained in the present Convention that are 

immediately applicable according to international law . . . 

All of this constitutes a binding international obligation to spend as much money 

as possible for disability programs in the United States and around the world. It 

is one thing for us to desire to help other nations in their fulfillment of their obligations, it is quite another to become legally obligated to do so. 

Consider this analogy. If Person A has a Neighbor B with hungry children, A may 

be quite willing to help B with food for his family on occasion. It would be quite 

a different matter for A to enter into a legally binding contract to feed B’s children 

to the maximum extent of his available resources. 

The Committee on the Rights of the Child (a parallel group for a long-established 

treaty) routinely finds fault with nations for failing to spend enough for the needs 

of children as required by the UNCRC.2 That committee specifically criticized Egypt 

and Indonesia for spending a disproportionate share of its resources on military expenditures as compared to its spending on children’s needs.3

There was also scant attention paid to the issue of the need to conform our law 

to the dictates of the treaty. For example, there was no serious effort by any witness 

to answer my argument that the ‘‘best interest’’ standard contained in Article 7 is 

contrary to the parental rights provisions of the IDEA. IDEA gives ultimate authority to parents to determine what is in their child’s best interest. Article 7 transfers 

ultimate authority to government. 

The presence of the non-self-executing declaration does not answer this concern. 

That only means that Congress rather than the Court must pass new laws to repeal 

or modify the parental rights provisions of IDEA. This treaty requires Congress to 

make such modifications if it is going to act in good faith compliance with its treaty 

obligations. 

At the end of the day, those who argue that the United States undertakes no duty 

to conform its laws to the dictates of the treaty are relying on the callous observation that the U.N. does not have sufficient raw power to force the United States to 

do something we do not want to do. That is true enough. But it reveals a great deal 

about the inability of these kinds of treaties to actually force any nation to comply 

with its terms. 

But, if we are going into this treaty for the purpose of being an example to the 

rest of the world, we have to start with the full intention to actually obey the treaty 

ourselves. When we agree to comply with the treaty, we are agreeing that America 

is giving up its free choice of policy options with regard to disability law. We are 

promising that we will conform our laws to the dictates of this U.N. treaty. 

The Senate has little idea of the full scope of the potential changes we must make 

to comply with this treaty. Detailed inquiry on an article by article basis is needed. 

At a minimum, I have demonstrated we will become obligated to modify the IDEA 

and we will become obligated to spend our resources to the maximum extent possible to aid other nations in their disability programs. No one can offer a serious 

argument as to why it is necessary for American parents with disabled children to 

give up their rights in order to encourage other nations to build greater forms of 

accessibility. 

The United States Constitution says that treaties are a part of the highest law 

of the land. This is no mere set of altruistic promises and goals. We are being asked 

to give our sacred promise to obey the law of the United Nations concerning the 

domestic policy of the United States. 

———————— 1Geraldine van Bueren, ‘‘International Rights of the Child, Section D,’’ University of London, 

36 (2006). Although Professor van Bueren was discussing the meaning of the UNCRC, she is 

stating a general legal principle fully applicable to the UNCRPD. 2See, e.g., Paragraph 46, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the 

Child: Austria, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 38th sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.251 

(2005); Paragraph 17 and 18, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the 

Child: Australia, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 40th sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.268 

(2005); Paragraphs 18 and 19, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the 

Child: Denmark, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 40th sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/DNK/CO/ 

147 

3 (2005); Paragraph 10, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: 

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 

31st sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.188(2002); and Paragraph 24 and 25, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Ireland, Committee on the Rights of the 

Child, 43rd sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/IRL/CO/2 (2006). 3Geraldine Van Bueren, ‘‘Combating Child Poverty—Human Rights Approaches,’’ 21 

HUM.RTS. Q. 680, 694, 705 (1999). 

RESPONSES OF JUDITH HEUMANN AND EVE HILL TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOHNNY ISAKSON

Question. The United States has successfully undertaken a comprehensive effort 

to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. However, some of the U.S. laws 

offering these protections contain important nuances and exceptions. For example, 

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to employers with 

fewer than 15 employees. The Convention does not appear to contain a similar exception. It is my understanding that the administration believes that the proposed 

reservation concerning ‘‘non-regulation of certain private conduct’’ in conjunction 

with the declaration that the Convention is not self-executing would make it clear 

that ratification of the treaty would not impose a new mandate on employers 

exempted by the ADA. Can you confirm this understanding? 

Answer. Ratification of the Disabilities Convention will not impose any new requirements on employers exempted by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The proposed reservation on nonregulation of certain private conduct would ensure that the 

treaty obligations undertaken by the United States with respect to regulating private conduct are coextensive with the requirements of existing U.S. law. The Constitution and laws of the United States recognize a zone of private activity that is 

not extensively governed by the United States. For example, employers with fewer 

than 15 employees that are not covered by Federal domestic disability legislation 

would continue to maintain that status, and ratification of the Convention would 

impose no additional legal obligations. The non-self-executing declaration would 

make clear that the Convention cannot be directly enforceable by U.S. courts and 

thus, would not give rise to individually enforceable rights. 

Question. Article 27 of the Convention calls on State Parties to ‘‘protect the rights 

of persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others, to just and favorable conditions of work, including equal opportunities and equal remuneration for work of 

equal value . . . ’’ (emphasis added). This phrase has raised some concern as it 

could be construed to imply that the Convention contemplates comparable worth. 

The administration has recognized this by proposing an Understanding clarifying 

that ratification of the Convention would not require adoption of a comparable 

worth framework for persons with disabilities. However, the description of this 

Understanding in the Executive Summary, is not clear. Can you confirm that the 

proposed Understanding does not require the adoption of a comparable worth framework? 

Answer. Yes. The proposed Understanding (page 67 of Treaty Doc. 112–7) makes 

it clear that the Convention does not require the adoption of a comparable worth 

framework for persons with disabilities. Current U.S. law is consistent with the language in Article 27 regarding equal pay for work of equal value because it provides 

strong protections for persons with disabilities against unequal pay, including the 

right to equal pay for equal work. 

Question. Some have raised concern that the Convention contemplates that employers undertake affirmative action measures with respect to employment of individuals with disabilities. The Rehabilitation Act requires certain Federal contractors 

and subcontractors to undertake affirmative action efforts, but private sector employers who are not Federal contractors or subcontractors are not subject to such 

affirmative action requirements. Article 27 of the Convention requires State Parties 

to ‘‘promote the employment of persons with disabilities in the private sector 

through appropriate policies and measures, which may include affirmative action 

programmes, incentives, and other measures.’’ Is it the administration’s view that 

this language does not impose an affirmative action mandate on private sector 

employers? 

Answer. Yes. The Disabilities Convention does not impose an affirmative action 

mandate on private sector employers. The proposed reservation on nonregulation of 

certain private conduct would ensure that the treaty obligations undertaken by the 

United States with respect to regulating private conduct are coextensive with the 

requirements of existing U.S. law. The Constitution and laws of the United States 

148 

recognize a zone of private activity that is not extensively governed by the United 

States. For example, entities such as private sector employers that are not Federal 

contractors or subcontractors would not be subject to an affirmative action mandate. 

The non-self-executing declaration would make clear that the Convention cannot be 

directly enforceable by U.S. courts and thus, would not give rise to individually 

enforceable rights. 

(149) 

XIII. ANNEX 4.—ADDITIONAL LETTERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

IN SUPPORT OF THE CONVENTION

150 

151 

152 

153 

154 

155 

156 

157 

158 

159 

160 

161 

162 

163 

164 

165 

166 

167 

168 

169 

170 

171 

172 

173 

174 

175 

176 

177 

178 

179 

180 

181 

182 

183 

184 

185 

186 

187 

188 

189 

190 

191 

192 

193 

194 

195 

196 

197 

198 

Æ