PDF版本(大文件)
记录问题

S. HRG。111-576 THE LAW OF THE LAND: U.S. IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW of the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ---------- DECEMBER 16, 2009 ---------- Serial No. J-111-68 ---------- Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary S. Hrg. 111-576 THE LAW OF THE LAND: U.S. IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW of the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ DECEMBER 16, 2009 __________ Serial No. J-111-68 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 57-909 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN CORNYN, Texas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania AL FRANKEN, Minnesota Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director Matt Miner, Republican Chief Counsel Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN CORNYN, Texas EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel Brooke Bacak, Republican Chief Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Coburn, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared statement............................................. 167 Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois....................................................... 1 prapred statement............................................ 180 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared statement............................................. 344 WITNESSES Henderson, Wade, President and Chief Executive Officer, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Washington, DC.......... 20 Massimino, Elisa, President and Chief Executive Officer, Human Rights First, Washington, DC................................... 18 Perez, Thomas E., Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC................ 5 Posner, Michael H., Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Department of State, Washington, DC.......... 3 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Thomas E. Perez to questions submitted by Senator Coburn......................................................... 79 Responses of Michael H. Posner and Thomas E. Perez to questions submitted by Senators Coburn, Durbin and Feingold.............. 30 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD American Civil Liberties Union, Jamil Dakwar, Director, and Michael W. Macleod-Ball, Acting Director, New York, New York, joint statement................................................ 89 Advocates for Human Rights, Minneapolis, Minnesota, statement.... 99 Amnesty International, London, United Kingdom, statement......... 105 Armenian Assembly of America, Bryan Ardouny, Executive Director, Washington, DC, statement...................................... 113 Campaign for a New Domestic Human Rights Agenda, Atlanta, Georgia, statement............................................. 116 Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, Jody Kent, National Coordinator, Washington, DC, statement......................... 122 Center for Justice and International Law, Vivana Krsticevic, Executive Director, and Michael J. Camilleri, Senior Staff Attorney, Washington, DC, joint statement...................... 124 Center for Reproductive Rights, New York, New York, statement.... 133 Center for the Human Rights of Users and Survivors to Psychiatry, Chestertown, New York, statement............................... 138 Civil and Human Rights and Justice Organizations, joint letter... 142 Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, Secretary of State, State Department, Washington, DC, statement.......................... 144 Cohn, Marjorie, Professor, Thomas Jefferson School of Law and Director, U.S. Human Rights Network, Atlanta, Georgia, statement...................................................... 163 Columbia Law School, Human Rights Institute, New York, New York, statement...................................................... 168 Council for Global Equality, Human Rights Campaign, Washington, DC, statement.................................................. 177 Everson, Mary Lynn, Heartland Alliance Marjorie Kovler Center, Chicago Illinois, statement.................................... 183 Foscarinis, Maria, Executive Director, National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, Washington, DC, statement.............. 187 Friends Committee on National Legislation, Washington, DC, statement...................................................... 193 Ginger, Ann Fagan, Executive Director, Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute, Berkeley, California, statement..................... 198 Hamilton, Lee H., letter......................................... 202 Henderson, Wade, President and Chief Executive Officer, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Washington, DC, statement...................................................... 205 Heartland Alliance National Immigrant Justice Center, Mary Meg McCarthy, Executive Director, Chicago, Illinois, statement and attachment..................................................... 215 Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC: Steven Groves, publication no. 2168, August 7, 2008.......... 226 Brett D. Schaefer and Steven Groves, publication no. 2339, November 9, 2009........................................... 236 Human Rights USA, Washington, DC, statement...................... 245 Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children and Family Justice Center, Shobha L. Mahaev, Chicago, Illinois, statement. 250 Indian Law Resource Center, Washington, DC, statement............ 256 International Commission for Labor Rights, Jeanne Mirer, Zaid Hydari, and Kae D'Adamo, New York, New York, joint statement... 265 International Indian Treaty Council, Andrea Carmen, Executive Director, San Francisco, California, letter.................... 269 Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights of the American Jewish Committee, Washington, DC, statement....... 275 Jenkins, Alan, Executive Director, the Opportunity Agenda, New York, New York, statement...................................... 277 Jewish Council on Urban Affairs, Chicago, Illinois, report....... 284 Johnson, Douglas A., Executive Director, Center for Victims of Torture, Minneapolis, Minnesota, statement..................... 289 Just Detention International, Washington, DC, statement.......... 300 Justice Now, Oakland, California, statement...................... 307 Keller, Allen S., Associate Professor of Medicine, New York University, New York, New York, statement...................... 310 Latino Justice PRLDEF, Cear A. Perales, President & General Counsel, New York, New York, statement......................... 324 Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC, statement...................................................... 326 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., Senators Feingold, Franken, Kerry and Cardin, Washington, DC, joint letter........................... 339 Lyon, Beth, Associate Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law, Villanova, Pennsylvania, letter and chart....... 341 Massimino, Elisa, President and Chief Executive Officer, Human Rights First, Washington, DC: statement.................................................... 349 Appendix to the testimony.................................... 357 Midwest Coalition for Human Rights, Minneapolis, Minnesota, statement...................................................... 368 Minnesota Tenants Union, Minneapolis, Minnesota, statement....... 374 McFarland, Maria, Washington, Advocacy Deputy Director, Human Rights Watch, Washington, DC, statement........................ 381 Nahapetian, Kate, Goverment Affairs Director, Armenian National Committee of America, Washington, DC, statement................ 396 National Alliance of HUD Tenants, Boston, Massachusetts, statement...................................................... 400 National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and The Sentencing Project, Washington, DC, joint statement............ 406 National Association of Social Workers, Washington, DC, statement 419 National Lawyers Guild, New York, New York, statement............ 423 Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts, statement...................................................... 427 Northwestern University School of Law, Director, Center for International Human Rights David Scheffer, Mayer Brown/Robert A. Helman, Professor of Law.................................... 436 Open Society Institute, New York, New York, statement............ 441 Perez, Thomas E., Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, statement..... 447 Physicians for Human Rights, A. Frank Donaghue, Chief Executive Officer, Washington, DC, statement............................. 453 Pollack, Wendy, Director, Women's Law and Policy Project, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Chicago, Illinois, statement...................................................... 462 Posner, Michael H., Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Department of State, Washington, DC, statement...................................................... 471 Poverty & Race Research Action Council, Washington, DC, statemenet..................................................... 476 Price, Mary, Vice President and General Counsel, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, Washington, DC, statement.................. 485 Randall, Vernellia R., University of Dayton School of Law, Dayton, Ohio, statement........................................ 492 Rights Working Group, Washington, DC, statement.................. 496 Ryan, Liz, President and CEO, Campaign for Youth Justice, Washington, DC, statement...................................... 502 Schulz, William F., Senior Fellow for Human Rights Policy, Center for American Progress, Washington, DC, statement............... 515 Sklar, Morton, Founding Executive Director Emeritus, World Organization for Human Rights USA, Washington, DC, statement... 520 Soler, Mark, Executive Director, Center for Children's Law and Policy, Washington, DC, statement.............................. 526 Smith, Chad, Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation, Tahlequah, Oklahoma, statement............................................ 535 Taifa, Nkechi, Senior Policy Analyst, Open Society Institute, Washington, DC, statement...................................... 540 Todres, Jonathan, Professor, Associate Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law, Atlanta, Georgia and Carol Smolenski, Exeutive Director, ECPAT-USA, Brooklyn, New York on behalf of ECPAT-USA, statement................................. 556 United States Council for International Business, Peter M. Robinson, President & Chief Executive Officer, New York, New York, statement................................................ 562 United States Department of State, Diplomacy in Action, Washington, DC, statement...................................... 564 Urban Justice, Ejim Dike, New York, New York, statement.......... 565 U.S. Human Rights Network, Atlanta, Georgia, statement........... 571 University of San Francisco, Center for Law and Global Justice, School of Law, San Fransisco, California, statement............ 588 Venetis, Penny M., Rutgers School of Law, University of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey, statement.......................... 590 THE LAW OF THE LAND: U.S. IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES ---------- WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2009 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:34 a.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senators Durbin, Feingold, Cardin, and Franken. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Chairman Durbin. Welcome, everyone. This hearing of the Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee will come to order. The title of today's hearing is ``The Law of the Land: U.S. Implementation of Human Rights Treaties.'' This is the first ever congressional hearing on U.S. compliance with our human rights treaty obligations. Last Thursday, December 10th, was the 61st anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Eleanor Roosevelt, the architect of the Universal declaration, once said, ``Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home. . . . Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere.'' The United States has played a leading role in drafting and ratifying landmark human rights treaties. Congress has passed important legislation to implement these treaties. Just last year, this Subcommittee produced the Child Soldiers Accountability Act, which makes it a Federal crime and immigration violation to recruit or use child soldiers. This implements part of our obligations under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. Democrats and Republicans alike agree that we must make every effort to comply with the legal obligations we undertake when we ratify a human rights treaty. Indeed, under our Constitution, these treaties are part of the supreme law of our land. Democratic and Republican administrations alike monitor and report on U.S. compliance with our human rights treaty obligations. In fact, it was the Bush administration that brought the United States up to date with our human rights treaty reporting requirements for the first time and began preparations for the first ever Universal Periodic Review of the United States, which will take place next year. The Obama administration is building on this record, and I look forward to hearing more about their plans today. But reporting alone is not enough. We have to look at ourselves in the mirror and ask the difficult questions. Let us take one example. Today in the United States of America, more than 2.3 million people are imprisoned. This is, by far, more prisoners than any country in the world and, by far, the highest per capita rate of incarceration in the world. African-Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of white Americans. There are human rights issues behind these numbers that we must look at honestly. I also want to acknowledge our shortcomings in Congress. We have not held a single hearing on U.S. compliance with the human rights treaties that we have ratified. Hopefully today we will take a small step in the right direction. Why is it important to comply with human rights treaties? It is not because we fear the judgment of the United Nations. Democrats and Republicans alike agree that some U.N. criticisms may go too far from time to time. We take our treaty obligations seriously because it is who we are. The United States is a government of laws, and not people. Complying with our treaty obligations also enhances our efforts to advocate for human rights around the world. When the United States leads by example, we can help make universal human rights a reality, both close to home and around the world. I note that Senator Coburn has not arrived. I do want to note for the record that, though we disagree on so many things, we have been able to find such valuable common ground in this Subcommittee. He is a great ally and partner in our efforts on human rights, and I am going to, of course, defer to him when he arrives. Unless my colleagues Senator Cardin or Senator Franken have an opening statement, I am going to recognize the first panel. Our first panel includes the top human rights official and the top civil rights official in the Obama administration. Their presence here today speaks volumes about the administration's commitment to implementing human rights treaty obligations. Each witness will have 5 minutes for an opening statement and their complete statements will be made part of the record. I would like to ask the witnesses to please stand and, in the custom of the Committee, be sworn. Do you affirm or swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. Posner. I do. Mr. Perez. I do. Chairman Durbin. Thank you. Let the record reflect that both witnesses answered in the affirmative. Our first witness, Michael Posner, is the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Previously the founding Executive Director and President of Human Rights First, which he headed for 30 years, Mr. Posner is one of our Nation's most prominent human rights advocates. Among other accomplishments, he led the effort to enact the first law providing for political asylum. He also helped found the Global Network Initiative, a code of conduct for Internet companies, that this Subcommittee held a hearing on last year. He has a bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan and a law degree from the University of California at Berkeley. Mr. Posner, thank you for being here today. The floor is yours. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL H. POSNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Posner. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and members of the Committee, for holding this important hearing and for the work of this Subcommittee. I have submitted written testimony that I ask be made part of the record, and I am going to try to summarize it now. I would also ask that the text of Secretary Clinton's speech on human rights earlier this week at Georgetown be made part of the record. Chairman Durbin. Without objection. [The speech follows:] Mr. Posner. Chairman Durbin, I first want to thank you for your leadership in creating this important Subcommittee and the leadership you have demonstrated on issues like child soldiers, genocide accountability, Internet freedom, mental health issues in prisons, and today on U.S. implementation of international treaty obligations. We really appreciate your leadership. I want to set the context for this discussion by noting the Obama administration's commitment to advancing human rights in the international community as guided by a commitment to principled engagement; a determination to apply human rights standards to every government, including our own; and a belief that sustainable change in any society, including in this country, must be rooted from within and, therefore, involve civil society and other internal agents of change. Drawing from these broad principles, I want to focus this morning on three points, the first of which is this notion of principled engagement. As President Obama made clear in his speech at the General Assembly and again last week in Oslo, and as Secretary Clinton spelled out earlier this week, this administration is committed both in word and deed to a new era of principled engagement with the world. Our decision to join the U.N. Human Rights Council earlier this year is one element, but we fully realize the challenges we face in engaging with the U.N. on human rights issues. All too often, the U.N. has been a venue for government to play politics and exploit grievances. In deciding to join the Human Rights Council, our intention is to challenge these practices and to make the council a venue for advancing the interests of vulnerable people around the world. Second, our engagement at the U.N. and elsewhere is guided by our own history and a bipartisan commitment to the human rights agenda. The Founders of this country drafted a Constitution that was predicated on our commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms, and in my written testimony I spell out a range of historic landmarks, including the Four Freedoms speech that President Roosevelt gave in 1941; Eleanor Roosevelt's leadership, which you referenced in your opening comments; and a range of comments also by Democratic and Republican leaders, including President Reagan. The third element that is essential here today is that we apply the same international law principles to ourselves. That is the purpose of this hearing, and as President Obama has stated repeatedly, this must be a cornerstone of our human rights policy. We can and we should lead by example, meeting our own obligations under both domestic and international law and not shying away from self-reflection and debate about our own record. As Secretary Clinton again reaffirmed this week, holding ourselves accountable does not make us weaker but, instead, reaffirms the strength of our principles and our institutions. I want to just summarize where we are on the treaty process. The United States has ratified, as you know, a range of human rights treaties, including the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture, the Convention Against All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as the Convention on the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. These treaties require all parties to write periodic reports, and we have done so since the mid-1990s, and we will continue to do so, including reports on the Optional Protocols on the Convention on Child Soldiers, which will come out in January; on the Civil and Political Covenant, which we will submit next September; and, importantly, as part of the Human Rights Council, the Universal Periodic Review process, which is a new process. We are taking it seriously. We are committed to making sure that the United States engages in this process in a way that involves not only different agencies of the Federal Government, but that we also take it to the States, and we are an involved civil society. We had a meeting last month with a range of organizations, including the two that are testifying in the second panel, about how we can engage civil rights, human rights groups in this society in helping to make our answers stronger. So this is for us a fundamental piece of what we are trying to do and build a human rights policy. I am excited about the prospect of being involved in it, and I welcome your questions. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Posner appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Posner. Our next witness is Thomas Perez. He is the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department. He has had quite an illustrious career in public service. He previously served as the Secretary of Maryland's Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation. Prior to that, he was a member of the Montgomery County Council, including a stint as council president. Earlier in his career, he served as Director of the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. He also was a staffer to Senator Ted Kennedy, and we all know Senator Kennedy's reputation when it came to advocacy for human rights. Mr. Perez has a bachelor's degree from Brown University; a master's in public policy from the JFK School of Government and a law degree from Harvard Law School. Mr. Perez, thank you for joining us, and please proceed. STATEMENT OF THOMAS E. PEREZ, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Perez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a pleasure to be back in front of this Committee, and it is a particular honor to be in front of you and in front of my home Senator, and Senator Kennedy's spirit endures in this hearing because I am quite confident that this was an issue of great passion, among many passions in his life. So it is a pleasure and an honor to be here. It is also a pleasure to be here with my friend and colleague, Assistant Secretary Posner. We are working very closely with the State Department, with other agency colleagues, with other NGOs to ensure that civil rights and human rights are understood as being inextricably intertwined. From the time of our Nation's founding, in every generation there are Americans who have sought and struggled to realize the promise of our Constitution to ensure equality, equal opportunity, and fundamental fairness for all people, regardless of race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, or disability. And in recent years, as we remarked when we had the hearing in the Senate HELP Committee, Americans have worked in earnest to combat discrimination against individuals based on sexual orientation or gender identity. All of this ongoing work--our civil rights work--is firmly rooted in the human rights movement of the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, our civil rights movement began as a human rights movement, with giants such as W.E.B. Du Bois testifying, in 1947, before the U.N. General Assembly on the denial of the right to vote for African Americans, the continued pervasive discrimination in educational opportunity, and the need for recognition of human rights for African Americans. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted in December 1948, recognizes that domestic civil rights protections are integral to human rights. That civil rights are part and parcel of human rights was underscored for me on a very personal level when I had my work- study job in college, working at the Rhode Island Commission for human rights. This was one of the oldest anti- discrimination law enforcement agencies in the country. It was established in 1949, the same period when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. The Commission had then and has now responsibility for adjudicating domestic civil rights complaints arising in Rhode Island, but like so many other State and local human rights agencies, it is known as a Commission for human rights, recognizing the inextricable intertwinedness--if that is a word--between civil rights and human rights. At the Federal level, the Civil Rights Division has, since its founding 1957, served as a primary force for realizing the promise of the Universal Declaration, having the responsibility to fully and fairly enforce the laws within its jurisdiction and to coordinate domestic civil rights enforcement across the Federal Government. Our national commitment to meeting our international human rights obligations is manifested by our enforcement of the Nation's civil rights laws and by our recognition that civil rights, nondiscrimination, and equal opportunity are indeed human rights. As President Obama has so eloquently made clear on many occasions, the only way we can promote our values across the globe is by living them at home. Today, the United States is party to three critical human rights treaties whose subject matters coincide with the work of the Civil Rights Division authorized under the Constitution and U.S. laws. They include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which is known as the CERD; and the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Under the President's leadership, we are working closely with our colleagues at the State Department and elsewhere in the Federal Government to ensure that the reports required under these treaties are done in a timely and thorough fashion and that they accurately reflect both the strengths and areas of improvement in our civil and human rights enforcement program. We are actively participating in the newly revitalized interagency policy Committee led by the National Security Council to explore ways in which we can enhance our compliance with and implementation of those human rights norms by which we are bound. And we are committed to the continuing with, in close partnership with the State Department in carrying out the Government's first ever participation in the U.N.'s Universal Periodic Review process. This effort, which is led by the State Department, will include surveying human rights in the United States, holding listening sessions across the country, and compiling our findings into a report that will provide a useful snapshot of where we are and where we need to go to meet our constitutional and international obligations. At the same time that we are working to meet our international obligations, the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice is committed to pursuing our agenda of restoration and transformation, and one of the most important things that we can accomplish in the Civil Rights Division to meet our obligations under these treaties is to ensure that we are fully and effectively and impartially enforcing all of the civil rights laws that are on the books. We recognize that as this Nation's leading civil rights enforcement agencies, we cannot pick and choose which laws to enforce, but we must be meaningfully and vigorously engaged across the board. Our aggressive program of restoration and transformation, therefore, spans the breadth of our authority and includes a host of areas--voting, religious liberty, nondiscrimination in employment, and the like. It also includes prosecuting hate crimes, official misconduct by law enforcement officers, and human trafficking. It includes renewed enforcement of our laws ensuring equal access to housing, nondiscriminatory lending and credit, and equal opportunities, to name a few more--equal educational opportunities, I should say, to name a few more. Finally, it includes addressed the pressing civil rights challenges of the 21st century, including, for example, expanding Federal protection for LGBT communities in employment and the successfully enacted hate crimes law, which I was proud to be at the signing of roughly a month ago. I also note that within the Department of Justice the Criminal Division and the National Security Division share the commitment of the Civil Rights Division to conduct our activities in a manner that is consistent with the human rights treaties outlined above. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and other members of this Committee on all of these issues, and I thank you for your time and attention this morning. [The prepared statement of Mr. Perez appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Durbin. Thank you very much for your testimony. It was about a week ago when Senator Boxer invited me and Senator Lautenberg, Senator Wyden, and Senator Merkley to come by her home and have dinner and then watch a documentary film entitled ``Playground.'' It was a film that has not been released yet, but it was produced by a young woman named Libby Spears. She had begun this documentary in Asia on the issue of child trafficking and child prostitution and at one point was invited to meet with a person--I wish I remembered his name--in the United States who said to her, ``Why are you going to Asia? The country with the most child trafficking in the world in the United States of America.'' Unfortunately, there are certain places within our country where it is notorious, primarily the Northwestern part of the United States. The documentary focused on the trafficking of children for prostitution and sexual exploitation between the United States and Canada and other countries. It was, as you can imagine, a gripping and sad documentary, which led me to tell my staff to followup on this. Well, let us put this topic in the context of today's hearing. Shortly, you are going to be submitting a report on our implementation of the Optional Protocol on Child Prostitution. As you do that, as you reflect on this in terms of not only the clear violation of American law, but our clear treaty obligations here, can you put this in context as to what that treaty does to either enlarge our responsibility or create an added reporting requirement? Mr. Perez. The factual circumstances that you describe shock the conscience, and I had the privilege, Senator, Mr. Chairman, of working in my previous iteration in the Justice Department on a number of cases involving human trafficking, sometimes of adults, sometimes of children. And those cases--so many cases that came to our attention shocked the conscience, but those cases were the ones that really kept you up at night because you would see the exploitation of some of our most vulnerable people in this country. The Criminal Division, under the very able stewardship of Lanny Breuer, is taking the lead in the issue of the child prostitution rings that you discussed. We work very closely with them because we also enforce the human-trafficking laws, including the laws that were passed in 2000 and reauthorized a number of times since then. And so it is a joint venture led by the Criminal Division but assisted by the Civil Rights Division. And certainly the laws that are on the books give us a remarkable set of tools at our disposal to move forward, and in enforcing those laws, I think we are giving meaning to a lot of the treaty obligations that you so correctly referred to, and I think---- Chairman Durbin. Can I zero in on one in particular? Mr. Perez. Sure. Chairman Durbin. In 2008, the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child criticized us for not having better data collection in the United States regarding the number of child prostitution victims. Are you familiar with that? Mr. Perez. I have not seen that particular report, but one of the things we talk about repeatedly in the context of trafficking is the data collection challenges, whether it is in the child prostitution context or the human-trafficking context. Collecting data has been something that we have strived to do. It is very, very difficult for a number of reasons, but it is one of those job one's. If you cannot collect the data, just like in the hate crimes context, the Hate Crime Statistics Act, data collection informs your prosecutive judgments and your investigative strategies. And so---- Chairman Durbin. Are we doing something about that data collection? Mr. Perez. Yes, the Criminal Division is spearheading this effort, and we are certainly assisting in that enterprise. Chairman Durbin. Now, recently the State of New York passed a safe harbor law. Are you familiar with this? Mr. Perez. No. Chairman Durbin. This law shielded sexually exploited children from being charged with prostitution. The law diverts child prostitution victims into counseling and treatment rather than into juvenile detention. The New York law appears to be the first such law in the land. Are we contemplating similar action either at the Federal level or do you know of other action at the State level that would move us closer to our treaty obligations being fulfilled? Mr. Perez. I am not familiar with the New York law to which you reference, but I will certainly go back to the Criminal Division and bring that to their attention and report back to you on their analysis of the New York law and how it could affect potential efforts in the Federal regard. Chairman Durbin. Mr. Posner. Mr. Posner. Yes, if I could just add, there is another dimension of this which is the State Department Office on Trafficking in Persons has for the last number of years done an annual report that looks at the whole world but the United States. And Secretary Clinton announce earlier this year that the next report, which is 2010, will also include a chapter on the United States. So that will help, I think, us as well do some of the--compel some of the reporting and gathering of statistics that you talk about. That is the first piece. Then I think with that treaty and others, or with that report and others, we ought to be looking at laws and implementation, and we ought to take a broader policy look to say, as we find problems, as we identify them in this kind of a comprehensive report, what are the policies at a State and Federal level that we can take to address the problem? Chairman Durbin. I always thought this annual report from the State Department with our human rights report card on the world was an interesting, some would say audacious position we are taking, that we are going to stand in judgment of others. If I understand you now, we are going to add the United States into this calculation in terms of our human rights record, at least with respect to the treaty obligations we have accepted. Mr. Posner. At this point it is with regard to traffic in particular, trafficking, but we are also going to do the period review which is going to take the whole look at everything in 2010, and then we will go from there. Chairman Durbin. Mr. Posner, I also note that there were some positive comments recently by the U.N. Special Representative on Children in Armed Conflict about two bills that we passed out of this Committee. That is good to know that people notice our efforts in that regard. What is the State Department doing to implement the Child Soldier Prevention Act? Mr. Posner. Well, again, one of the pieces now that the laws in place--and we regard those bills as a very good policy tool. We are beginning, as the laws require for us, to report on this. And so the trafficking report and the human rights report now are going to incorporate going forward those issues into what we do as a starting point. And we are beginning to work on a bilateral basis with governments to encourage similar legislation and similar attention to these issues. That is really critical as a part of our foreign policymaking. Chairman Durbin. We examined the child soldier issue. We identified countries that organizations have said have been involved in this, which we would generally characterize as our allies, some of whom we provide foreign aid to. And now we asked that this be part of the calculation of our future relationship with these countries. Is that going to be done? Mr. Posner. Well, as a first step, we are going to do the reporting, and then coming out of that, we are going to take a look at what it means in terms of our relation and our aid program, yes. Chairman Durbin. I might add that we tried, rather than to be punitive, to be constructive in terms of making certain that resources would be dedicated to repatriating these child soldiers and giving them the help that they need to come back to a normal life. So it is not just a matter of saying we will cut you off, but hoping that we can use some of the resources to stop the practice and to deal with those who have been victimized by it. Mr. Posner. We agree. This is a high priority for us, and both elements are right. We need to put pressure on governments to stop the practice, and we need to recognize that the victims need to be rehabilitated and need support. And there are various programs that my bureau is involved in in a number of places trying to do that. Chairman Durbin. Thank you. Senator Cardin. Senator Cardin. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me first point out that there would not be a Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law but for the leadership of Senator Durbin, and I personally want to thank you for your commitment to put a focus in the U.S. Senate on human rights and the compliance by the United States on our human rights obligations, not just our treaty obligations but our obligations to what this Nation stands for. This is a historic moment that we are having this hearing, and I just really want to first thank you for doing this. Chairman Durbin knows of my interest and his interest in the Helsinki Commission and the process of the Helsinki Commission where we look at human rights and we put a spotlight on problems around the world. Our Commission has also put a spotlight on the United States because we do need to make advancements. We are not doing everything right. We can do a better job, and it is important that the international community understand that it is not only our interest in what is happening globally, but what is happening in the United States. So thank you for holding this hearing and thank you for your efforts that we have a Subcommittee that can focus on this issue. I first also want to applaud the Obama administration. I think the actions taken by the President shortly after he took the oath of office to make it clear that the United States would deal with issues such as torture, making it clear that we would not tolerate torture in the United States under any circumstances, that we were going to comply with our international obligations and our domestic laws, Attorney General Holder's actions early in making clear that prior opinions of counsel would no longer be applicable. Declaring the intent to close Guantanamo Bay was a clear message to the international community. And Secretary Clinton's comments this past week about the importance of human rights was a welcome message. So I applaud the administration. Now, let me get to some of the specifics. I think the point that Chairman Durbin made about these reviews that are required by law--and trafficking is an area where the United States has taken a major leadership role internationally and has changed the attitude internationally on trafficking, and we now have an action plan in many countries around the world. We know that there are countries that are the source of trafficking, and then it will not take place unless there is a destination country. And you have to have actions at both places. We do require by law that there be a report by the State Department on the actions of all countries in dealing with trafficking, and we appreciate that that review now will take place as to our current laws in the United States and the actions taking place in the United States. We do by law require you to do human rights evaluations of all countries. We do not have that by law required for the United States. And I think one of the things, Mr. Chairman, we might want to take a look at is whether we should not as a Congress institutionalize a review of our own actions and meeting standards on human rights as well as the trafficking issue. And I would welcome thoughts as to whether we can do this administratively, whether Congress should weigh in so we institutionalize. But these reviews need to be given more attention, more attention in the United States and more attention internationally. And I am afraid that we have not used the reviews generally on human rights as effectively as we could. A lot of work goes into it, but I think we need to have a more effective use of these reviews. And it would certainly have more credibility if the United States was part--if we reviewed actions in our own country with the same standards we use in the international community. Let me just question you on some of the statements that you have first, Mr. Posner. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, I appreciate the fact that you said that we will communicate on a regular basis as required by the Convention and give thorough reports, but that has not been the case in the past. The United States has been tardy in submitting its reports, and it certainly has not provided detailed information. There have been criticisms of the U.S. compliance with the treaty obligations in racial profiling and the manner in which we treat juveniles. These issues have been raised in the past along with how Katrina was handled internationally, perceptions--not only perceptions, but reality. Can you just elaborate a little bit more on our commitment to comply with this treaty as far as listening to the concerns that are being raised and giving a more timely and detailed response to the reporting? Mr. Posner. Yes, Senator. Thank you for asking the question. I think there are different approaches to how you look at these treaties and our reporting. One approach is to say this is something that is required by the U.N. or somebody and let us do it de minimis. Let us tell them what we need to tell them and tell them what the laws are, et cetera, but it is really not about us. And there is another approach which is the approach that I favor and this administration, the President has articulated, which is to say let us actually take a look at the underlying issues and figure out how we can use the reporting process to improve our own record. This is a great country, and we have a great democratic constitutional system, but there is always room for improvement. And we ought to use these reporting opportunities--and view them as opportunities--to take a look at our own performance and say where there are shortcomings and how do we address them at a Federal and at a State level. It is easier to say that than to do it, but beginning with the Periodic Review this year and the review of the Civil and Political Covenant, and then in subsequent years we are going to come back to the Convention on Racial Discrimination, the Convention on Torture, and we are going to look to see how do we both engage various Federal agencies that need to be part of this, how do we engage the States, and how do we take advantage of expertise of groups like the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights to figure out--and Wade Henderson's testimony lists a number of things that I think we need to be looking at when we come back to the review of the racial discrimination treaty. So I do not have the particulars now of what we are going to do, but I can assure you that our intention is to be forthcoming, honest in our evaluation, to be inclusive in the approach, and to use it as an opportunity to figure out what we need to change. Senator Cardin. Thank you. Mr. Perez, in your written comments--you were unable because of the clock to give all of your statement. I just want to underscore two points and then ask a very quick question, and I know the Chairman is going to be a little lenient on me because I spent my first minute complimenting him. I am sure I can get an extra---- [Laughter.] Chairman Durbin. Take your time. Senator Cardin. But I really want to compliment you for taking this opportunity to continue your commitment in the Civil Rights Division and the Department of Justice is committed to pursuing a more robust approach to civil rights enforcement and accomplishment, that you are committed to ensuring full political participation by qualified voters in our democratic process through enforcement of our voting rights laws, and engage in affirmative programs to reinvigorate our enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That is in your written statement, and I just really want to put a spotlight on that because you and I have talked about this, and we are very much supportive of the Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Division doing its traditional role in these very important areas. I have one specific question which deals with the torture treaty. When the Senate ratified that, they referenced amendments to our Constitution 5, 8, and 14 as saying that it is how we interpret the Convention Against Torture. That seemed to be adequate at the time, but now that I look how the Bush administration tried to justify torture, which I think was against our Constitution and our laws, but clearly against the Convention, do we need to take a better look at the treaty to make sure that it is clear that we are in compliance with the international agreements? And, second, does the statute of limitations--that is not mentioned here--cause any concern as to whether we would be restricted in a 5-year statute of limitations, which is generally used? And do we need to take further action in order to make it clear that torture is not going to be permitted? Mr. Perez. Thank you for your questions, and thank you for your longstanding leadership, not only for the Nation but also in the State of Maryland on civil rights issues, Senator. The torture issues are very, very critical, and what we have observed most recently, for instance--and this was a Criminal Division prosecution in the Southern District of Florida of Chuckie Taylor, the son of Charles Taylor of Liberia, under the Federal statutes that you enacted. In that particular context, actually in the briefs there was reference to the treaty that you just referred to, and so I think it was an example of where Federal law was informed by our treaty obligations and actually resulted in a very successful prosecution of an individual who had engaged in heinous acts. And so that was, I think, a very good example of the interplay between our treaty obligations and Federal laws that were enacted that really reflect those values embodied in those treaty obligations. As it relates to the statute of limitations question, I would need to study that further because I have not really studied that in any detail, and I am reluctant to give what prove to be uninformed answers. But I am very committed to getting back to you on that. Senator Cardin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Durbin. Thank you. Senator Franken. Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been here a while now. I did not know this rule. How many seconds extra do I get for every second I compliment you? Chairman Durbin. Two. It is a bonus. Senator Franken. OK. Well, in that case, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership and for calling this exceptionally important hearing. This is the first hearing in the Senate on our compliance with human rights treaties, and so I am proud to be a Senator on this day, and I am proud to be a Senator from Minnesota. My State has a long history in the fight for human rights. We are the first State in the Nation to have a center for the rehabilitation of victims of torture, and we consistently welcome more refugees to our State than any other State per capita, I think the second most in the Nation. My predecessor, Paul Wellstone, was a consistent and unabashed advocate for human rights, authoring and passing, for example, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act in 2000. This has been bipartisan from Senators from our State, and I hope to keep that tradition alive. Let me ask a few questions first of Mr. Posner. Last week, in a hearing I asked Secretary Napolitano about the detention of asylum seekers, and I know you know a lot about refugees seeking asylum. Now, this issue is very relevant at this hearing. Let me explain. You can be a human rights activist who was jailed and tortured in another country, get a visa to come to the United States, enter the country legally, and ask for asylum the second you arrive here, step off the plane, and you will be mandatorily detained. In fact, even after you have convinced two Government officials, the customs agent and asylum officer, that you have a credible fear of returning home, the Government can continue to detain you. This happened to thousands of asylum seekers in this country. I know that you are scheduled to report on the United States compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Do you think that these practices are consistent with Article 9, Section 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which this Congress ratified in 1992 and which prohibits arbitrary detention? Mr. Posner. This is, Senator, as you know, something that in my previous life I worked on quite a bit, and I do still-- this is not the focal point of what I am doing in the State Department, but it is something that I think we as a Government need to take a very close look at. We will take a look at it both in the context of reviewing the Civil and Political Covenant, but also in this Periodic Review. One of the things we are going to do--and I think it mentioned it in the opening statement--is to have a series of consultations around the country starting next month in New Orleans looking at some of the Katrina issues. And others are going to be set in different parts of the country. At least one of those reviews will be designed to look at a range of immigration and refugee issues in particular, and this is something that is very close to my heart. Senator Franken. I know that. Mr. Posner. And I can assure you we are going to look at it. Senator Franken. Then another point on that. Once an asylum seeker is detained and the Department of Homeland Security decides to keep him in detention, that asylum seeker cannot appeal his detention to an immigration court. That is an unappealable decision. I do not think that is consistent with Article 9, Section 4 of that treaty, the requirement that anyone detained be afforded access to a court to challenge his or her detention. Could you look at that as you conduct these hearings and as you think more about this issue? Mr. Posner. We certainly will, and I would say just generally I am not up to speed on all of the details of this right now. Senator Franken. Sure. Mr. Posner. But I would say in general one of the things I certainly noticed, we noticed over the last 8 years, 9 years, is that refugee issues became very much part of a national security debate, and in that context, there was a lot of overreaching. And I think part of our challenge as an administration coming in is to take a fresh look at all those things. So that is what we will do. Senator Franken. Thank you. Mr. Perez, first of all, ``intertwinedness'' is not a word. [Laughter.] Mr. Perez. OK. Thank you. I looked at you when I said that, Senator. Senator Franken. I know. Mr. Perez. I do not know why I looked at you when I said that. Senator Franken. I got to ``interconnectivity.'' Mr. Perez. That works. Senator Franken. You referred to the HELP Committee hearing where you very rightly supported the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, at least in my mind, which would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Do you have a position on the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women? You did not mention CEDAW in your testimony, but I believe that we are one of just a handful of nations that have refused to ratify the Convention, and on this point we are really in the same league as Sudan and Iran. Do you have a position on that? Does the administration have a position on that? Mr. Posner. Maybe I can answer that. There are several human rights treaties that we have signed, the U.S. has signed but not ratified, and I think the Commission Clinton has made it clear that this treaty, CEDAW, the Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, is a priority--in fact, the first priority. So one of the challenges we have is coming up here and finding 67 of you to support it, but we are committed to doing it, and we are in the process of reviewing how we are going to go about coming up here and asking for it. But it is something that the Secretary is very, very committed to, as am I. Senator Franken. Very good. Thank you. Chairman Durbin. Senator Feingold. Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two months ago, Senators Leahy, Cardin, Franken, Kerry, and myself asked your respective Departments for recommendations on how to bring the United States back into compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The U.S. Supreme Court in Medillin v. Texas determined that the Congress must act to address the fact that the United States is currently out of compliance with its Vienna Convention obligations, as found by the International Court of Justice in the 2004 Avena case. In a recent letter, the United States Council for International Business explained the dangers of the situation and said, ``The security of Americans doing business abroad is clearly and directly at risk by U.S. noncompliance with its obligations under the Vienna Convention. Overseas employees of the U.S. business community as well as other Americans traveling or living abroad need this vital safety net.'' And John Bellinger, the legal adviser to the State Department under Secretary Rice, made the same point in a recent New York Times op-ed piece. I would ask first, Mr. Chairman, that various materials relevant to this issue be placed in the record. Chairman Durbin. Without objection. [The information referred to appears as a submission for the record.] Senator Feingold. So given that background, do you agree that addressing this issue is critically important to the protection of Americans abroad? And when can we expect a response to our letter asking for your Departments' input on how to bring the United States back into compliance with the Vienna Convention? Mr. Perez. I absolutely agree that it is a critically important question because it implicates foreign nationals here and Americans abroad, and I appreciate your leadership in this issue. I have reviewed your letter and consulted with others in the Department. As you well know, it is a very complex question because it implicates both what we do at the Federal level and then what States do, and the reason for the delay--and I apologize for that--is simply the complexity of the issue, because as you know the Medillin case basically stood for the proposition that there are limits to what the Federal Government can say to a sovereign state. And so we are attempting to move forward, recognizing those complexities, to come up with a series of solutions that will address the issues that, you correctly point, ensure the security of Americans abroad and ensure our compliance with our treaty obligations here at home. I am continuing to consult with our colleagues at the Department, and we hope to get a response to you at the earliest possibility opportunity. And I can assure you that there is robust discussion underway within the various relevant components of the Department and our sister agencies as we address how best to address the myriad of complexities in this. Senator Feingold. What kind of timeframe are you suggesting for a response to the letter? Mr. Perez. I will consult with my colleagues and attempt to get you an answer within the next few days about when that timeframe would be. Senator Feingold. That is good. Assistant Secretary Posner, according to an Executive order issued by President Obama in January, the U.S. Government must ``provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with notification of and timely access to any individual detained in any armed conflict'' and in U.S. custody. The New York Times recently published a story alleging that there is a secret detention facility in Afghanistan to which the ICRC does not have access and where detainees allege that they have witnessed abuse as recently as this year. So let me ask you: Does the ICRC have access to all U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan? And what does it mean to provide timely access to the ICRC? Mr. Posner. Senator, I have seen those articles, and I am going to have to refer back and give you a written answer to that. I am not the person who has the most timely information on that. Senator Feingold. When can we expect that answer? Mr. Posner. Soon. I will push hard to get that answer to you in the next few weeks. Senator Feingold. OK. Assistant Secretary Posner, again, as you know, 21 years ago the United States became a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and you actually mentioned that treaty in your statement. The ratification of the treaty was obviously a momentous occasion, not just because it was the first human rights treaty passed by the U.N. General Assembly, but also because it was a signal to the world that the United States would never again sit back and watch as genocide took place. And I believe that when the United States ratified this treaty, it agreed to take decisive action to help prevent and punish genocide. I am raising this with you, perhaps obviously, because in 2004 the Bush administration made a determination that genocide had been committed in the Darfur region of Sudan and stated at the time that genocide could still be occurring. So after making that determination, what obligation do you believe the United States has to attempt to halt the genocide? And do you believe that the United States has fulfilled its legal commitment in this instance? Mr. Posner. Senator, we have, obviously, in the last several years watched painfully as hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in Darfur and several million have been exiled or internally displaced. I do not think any of us are satisfied with the way in which it has unfolded or believe that there cannot be more done. I do not view this so much as a legal obligation, but I think it is an absolute obligation of leadership in the world for us to do everything possible to address the genocide that occurred in Darfur and the continuing suffering. It is a tragic situation and one that in some ways continues to deteriorate. So we are committed to trying to find the right answer there. The alternatives are tough, and there is also a growing concern--and I think this has been part of the challenge recently--in a disintegration of the country between north and south and General Gration is preoccupied, understandably, with trying to hold the country together. But my view would be--and I think it is the administration's view--that we have to do both. We have to be engaged in trying to hold the country together and prevent a further erosion of peace in the south, but at the same time continue to focus on the genocide and violence---- Senator Feingold. Of course, I am aware of and deeply involved in all those policy arguments, but my question to you had to do with our legal obligation under the Genocide Convention. It is a narrower and important question. What are the ramifications of the position we have taken vis-a-vis the Genocide Convention in Sudan, particularly if we believe the genocide is still happening in Darfur? Mr. Posner. I think the legal obligation is that we have to respond to end the genocide. How you do it and what that means in practical terms I think is harder. You know, there has been a discussion, as you know and have been involved in for a long time, about what are the military options, what are other options in terms of sanctions. All of those things are still being discussed and on the table. Senator Feingold. Does this administration continue to believe this is genocide occurring under the Genocide Convention? Mr. Posner. I would have to get back to you on that. There is no question and various administration officials have said that genocide occurred in Darfur and there are continuing gross violations occurring to this day. I do not think the determination of whether the word still applies is really the key thing. It is an unacceptable situation now, and we need to be operating with all of our energies to prevent the continued violence and killing and disappearance and rape that characterizes Darfur today. Senator Feingold. Thank you. Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Senator Feingold. I want to thank this panel. This is not the last time we will probably call on you, because I think that we feel--and I think you share this feeling in the administration--that as painful as some of these questions may be, it is appropriate that we ask them and establish that we are trying our best to live up to the very standards that we have agreed to and that we suggest the rest of the world should abide by. So thank you very much for your service. Mr. Posner. I agree. Mr. Perez. Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Durbin. We are honored to welcome on our next panel two of our Nation's leading human rights and civil rights advocates. I am going to introduce them as they are sitting down in the interest of time. The first one who will testify is Elisa Massimino. She is the President and CEO of Human Rights First, one of the country's most prominent and well-respected human rights organizations. Ms. Massimino joined Human Rights First in 1991 and was previously the organization's Washington Director. Ms. Massimino is also an adjunct professor at the highly regarded Georgetown University Law Center. She holds a bachelor's degree from Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas, a master's degree in philosophy from Johns Hopkins University, and a law degree from the University of Michigan. I want to especially note that Ms. Massimino has been very supportive of our Subcommittee efforts since it was created in 2007. Although we work very closely with Ms. Massimino, this is her first appearance before the Subcommittee. I will introduce the next witness and then ask that they both take the oath. A personal friend and a real leader, I am just honored that he is here today. Wade Henderson is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; the largest and oldest civil rights coalition in America. Mr. Henderson is also a law professor at the University of the District of Columbia. Previously, he was the Washington Bureau Director of the NAACP and Associate Director of the ACLU's Washington office. He has a bachelor's degree from Howard University and a law degree from Rutgers University School of Law. If I could ask you both to stand for the oath, please. Do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Ms. Massimino. I do. Mr. Henderson. I do. Chairman Durbin. Thank you. Let the record reflect that both witnesses answered in the affirmative. Ms. Massimino, please proceed. STATEMENT OF ELISA MASSIMINO, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST, WASHINGTON, DC Ms. Massimino. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the Committee for holding this important hearing. We are just profoundly grateful to you, Senator Durbin, for your leadership on so many human rights issues and, in particular, for the central role that you played in creating this Subcommittee. We think the Subcommittee's work signals a new approach and thinking about human rights in this country and that it will help educate Americans about their human rights and ensure that the U.S. Government views its human rights treaty requirements as a part of its domestic law. This is what the Constitution requires, so it is particularly fitting that the Judiciary Committee now formally can look at these issues explicitly. In the many years since the United States first started ratifying human rights treaties, I think this is the first hearing that I can remember ever explicitly addressing these issues, and we hope it is the first of many. I also want to welcome the attention of the Government witnesses to these issues. I really do not Congress could have any two better partners in this effort than Tom Perez and Mike Posner, both of whom really deeply understand the importance of implementation of human rights commitments. So we look forward to working with them and with you to further this. You mentioned the Eleanor Roosevelt quote about human rights beginning close to home, and it is particularly fitting. It should be on this Committee wall somewhere because the human rights treaties are intended to protect people close to home against government abuses of their rights. They are the supreme law of the land under our Constitution, but most Americans have never heard of them, and most government agencies who have the jurisdiction over the subject matter that is covered in those treaties have never heard of them either. Historically, the U.S. Government has kept the examination of human rights treaties behind a fence at the State Department, where they have been treated primarily as a matter of foreign policy. And for many years, Congress took the same approach, limiting jurisdiction over these issues--as human rights issues--to the committees that oversee the State Department and foreign relations. But that approach misses Eleanor Roosevelt's point. The U.S. Government has to understand that human rights laws are part of our domestic law, and Congress and the executive branch need to work together to bring these obligations into the mainstream of the domestic agencies with primary jurisdiction over their subject matter. Last week, we celebrated the 61st anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is our foundation document setting out the principles that the human rights treaties are intended to operationalize as standards by which to judge all governments. And as an organization based in the United States, my organization, Human Rights First, has focused particular attention on making sure that the U.S. lives up to those obligations. Ensuring compliance with human rights treaty obligations strengthens the U.S. effort to advance human rights abroad. And as Secretary Clinton said in her speech on Monday, we have to lead by example. There is just no substitute for U.S. global leadership on human rights. Without it, the agenda crumble and repressive governments operate with greater impunity, and really the very fabric of the norms that are enshrined in the Universal Declaration starts to fray. When the U.S. itself violates these norms--or sets them aside for expediency's sake--the global consensus erodes. And as President Obama said in Oslo last week, ``we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.'' We can have many hearings--and I hope we will--about the distance, the gap between our obligations and ideals and the current reality in the United States, but my testimony, which I hope you will accept in full in the record, outlines a strategy going forward to create a structure to ensure greater fidelity to those ideals and obligations in the future. And that is based on three components which I will just summarize briefly. First is the executive branch structure to enhance compliance, and you have heard about the Interagency Task Force on Treaty Implementation. I remember when the Interagency Task Force was formed, and we had high hopes for an expansive agenda for that Interagency Task Force. To my knowledge, it focused primarily on reporting externally to U.N. bodies and inquiries abroad about how we were complying with our treaty obligations, and that is very important. And as you mentioned, under President Bush we got current on our treaty reporting requirements. It is very important. But, really, for there to be a revolution in how we think about human rights in the United States, there has to be a lot more, and we would propose that the executive branch create a structure that will do a few important things: ensure that the legislation that is promoted by the administration or on which the administration is taking a position is vetted for conformity with treaty obligations; educate State and local governments and the broader public about their rights and responsibilities under human rights treaties; develop and execute a plan to monitor law, policy, and practice at the State level to assess conformity with human rights obligations; conduct an annual review of the reservations, understandings, and declarations to the treaties; and ensure that domestic agencies with the jurisdiction over this subject matter really have content experts who understand that this human rights law is part of their obligation. I see my time is already up, so I am going to leave the rest of the discussion about what Congress can do for the questions and answers. Thanks. [The prepared statement of Ms. Massimino appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Durbin. Thank you. Mr. Henderson. STATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Henderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this really important hearing, and thank you for having me here today on behalf of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of over 200 national organizations committed to building an America that is as good as its ideals. I appreciate your including the formal written statement in the record today, so thank you for that as well. We believe that human rights instruments, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, are not merely aspirational statements but effective tools for illuminating inequities here at home and abroad. Indeed, as Tom Perez noted in the previous panel, while it may have gone by a slightly different name, our Nation's modern civil rights movement was very much at its heart a human rights movement. The Leadership Conference itself was founded at the dawn of this movement, just 2 years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration and only 5 years after the Holocaust and the internment of Japanese Americans on U.S. soil. Our leaders were motivated not only by the standards articulated in our Nation's founding documents, but those in the Universal Declaration as well. Now, with that in mind, and with our 60th anniversary approaching, we have chosen to honor the legacy and the foresight of our Founders by fully incorporating the term ``human rights'' into our name. In January of 2010, we will officially become the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Civil rights are human rights, but we also know that the concept of human rights extends beyond those personal rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, to include protections such as the National Right to Education for All. Moving more directly to today's subject, I want to thank you for this hearing again and for your efforts in general to step up Congress' oversight of our domestic human rights obligations. The fact that this Subcommittee did not even exist prior to 2007 points to a troubling fact. Congress has not done enough to ensure that the United States lives up to its treaty obligations, which represent not just mere ideals but the law of the land. Today's hearing represents an encouraging turning point. We are also encouraged that the United States has been working to reclaim the leadership on international human rights matters by joining the UN's Human Rights Council, signing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and by the effort of U.S. NGOs to support the Senate's ratification of the Convention on the Elimination on All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. But as our Nation takes on these new commitments, we cannot lose sight of those that we have already made. As we reclaim our leadership on human rights, our shortcomings at home are not only harmful, they also undermine our credibility with other nations, and as they have in the past, they also serve as easy fodder for opponents who want to divert attention from even worse wrongdoings of their own. With that in mind, we would strongly encourage Congress to look at the following issues through a lens of our international treaty obligations: One issue that clearly implicates our international treaty obligations is that of racial disparities in our criminal justice system, particularly the one in sentencing for crack and powder cocaine, which has had a disproportionate effect on African-Americans and has helped give the United States the largest prison population in the world. To be sure, the sale of any cocaine product should be punished, but I think we can all agree that it should not be done in a disproportionately harsh and discriminatory manner, and that is the one area where the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the international community clearly agree. A second area is with respect to D.C. residents who currently face taxation without representation and lack a vote in our National legislature in violation of the most important right that citizens have in a democracy. International human rights bodies have taken notice, and the disenfranchisement of D.C. residents continues to undermine our efforts to promote democracy elsewhere. Third, the United States clearly needs a truly independent, bipartisan, national civil and human rights institution. For many years, we had one in the form of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, but the Commission has been weakened by political partisanship and is now a hollow shell of its former self. It is in dire need of overhaul. Fourth, both international human rights standards and our Nation's civil rights movement have long recognized that the right to form unions plays a critical role in ensuring equality. As A. Philip Randolph, one of our founders, once said, ``The two tickets to a better life are a voter registration card and a union card.'' But as workplaces change and as our Nation's policies fail to keep up, it is becoming harder and harder for all workers to organize, in violation of our obligations under the Universal Declaration, among other instruments. Finally, and sadly, the United States has clearly not taken seriously its human rights obligations toward the indigenous peoples of this country, the first Americans, in clear contradiction of well-established human rights principles and despite repeated condemnations by international human rights bodies. We strongly believe that civil and human rights must be measured by a yardstick both at home and abroad. On issues such as these, Congress must step in and make sure that our country is living up to the standards that we are trying to establish throughout the rest of the world. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Henderson appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Durbin. Thank you both. Mr. Henderson, thank goodness for your voice. The fact that you are here so frequently and the message that you bring is an important part of this democratic process. I do not know what we would do without you, and I am glad you are here today. Ms. Massimino, will you follow up on that? Mr. Henderson has been rather specific. Could you put it in this context? I am sure that, with your background in human rights and meetings with others from around the world, occasionally you will get into this exchange about how before the United States judges anyone else, why don't you take care of your own situation? You have heard Mr. Henderson's list. What would you add to it? Ms. Massimino. Well, I think we are in the context of the fight with al Qaeda in the last 8 years, I mean, this has been one of the biggest set-backs to U.S. global leadership, are the steps that the United States took to diverge from the Geneva Conventions, from the Convention Against Torture. You know, shortly after 9/11, when these measures started to come to light internationally, I was at a meeting with many of my counterparts from all around the world--Asia, Africa, the Middle East--all of whom are on the front lines of the struggle for human rights and democracy in their own countries. And when I asked them then what can we do to help you, they all to a person said, ``You have got to get the United States back on track, get your own house in order, because we need the United States to be a strong global leader on human rights.'' Without it, as I said, the consensus erodes and the norms become less than universal. I was just at a conference last week in London with human rights activists and government leaders from around the world, and the topic was: Are universal human rights really universal anymore? And I really do not believe we would have had that conversation before the missteps of our own country with respect to torture and abuse of prisoners and the Geneva Convention problems, the divergence from the Geneva Conventions that we had. So we still have work to do there, and the announcement yesterday with moves to close Guantanamo is a welcome step. But as you know, the devil is in the details, and the world is watching how we resolve these problems from accountability to prolonged, indefinite detention without charge. So we have to be vigilant. Chairman Durbin. Are there any other areas? Not that I want to diminish that, but there are so many different fronts that we can discuss. I spoke earlier about child trafficking. I am really asking you if your list would go to include any other topics that Mr. Henderson did not touch. Ms. Massimino. Oh, it is a very long list and I---- Chairman Durbin. It sure is. Ms. Massimino. In fact, I think it was a wonderful opportunity that you provided to the public to solicit testimony from so many groups who are focused on this issue, and I have begun to look at all of the submissions. My own organization, as you know, we touched on this earlier--I think Senator Franken raised it--about the discrepancy between our obligations under the Refugee Convention and the protocol that the U.S. is a party to and how we treat refugees and asylum seekers in this country. Next year will be the 30th anniversary of the Refugee Act, and I think it would be a particularly appropriate time for this Subcommittee to look at the specifics of our obligations under that treaty and whether or not we are living up to them under our own domestic legislation. There are many, many other areas that we could talk about, and I think I would--as a proud member of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Wade and I work closely together on a whole range of these issues. One on which I think we ought to--that this Committee could focus particular attention on which has the added benefit of enabling us to--the State Department and the Justice Department to join together and share our wisdom about how we are dealing with these issues with other countries is on bias-motivated violence and hate crimes. We obviously have taken a step forward there with our laws recently with the Matthew Shepard Act, but now we need to implement that, collect the data and demonstrate that it makes a difference on the ground. Those mechanisms and structures that we develop in Government to do that can be shared with other nations who also are facing in many places a disturbing rise in bias-motivated violence. So I would add that to the list as well. Chairman Durbin. Mr. Henderson, before I rechaired this Committee, I for a brief time was the Chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, which Senator Specter now chairs, of the Judiciary Committee. To demonstrate a certain ``intertwinedness'' between that Subcommittee and this Subcommittee---- [Laughter.] Chairman Durbin. One of the early hearings we had was on the crack/powder cocaine disparity. The administration has come out against the disparity and called for a 1:1 sentencing guideline. I have introduced legislation along that line, and it now is pending before the Committee, and we are working with the other side to see if we can find any common ground so that this can move in a fairly quick fashion. But can I step back for a second from that and say that, even before that disparity, we could see racial disparities within our system of justice. As bad as this is, as much as it has aggravated the situation--and I plead guilty as one of those who voted for it along with many others in the House who thought this was the right thing to do at the time, and I now realize how wrong we were. But this is the thing that you headlined as the first on your list and one that I have often asked of people aspiring to the bench and other law enforcement positions in our Government, to try to explain for a moment what this country is all about, where 12 or 13 percent of the population is African-American and it turns out that the numbers are just out of line in terms of those arrested, convicted, and incarcerated, as I said here 6:1. Can you step back for a moment, and be reflective and say what more can we do? I mean, we have made--for the record, we have made substantial progress. Mr. Henderson. Absolutely. Chairman Durbin. Witness my former colleague in the Senate. But can you tell me what more you think we can or should do? Mr. Henderson. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your question, but thank you for your incredible leadership on this really extraordinary issue. The fact that you have introduced a bill to address the crack/powder cocaine disparity, a bill in the Senate that is now the pending business of the Judiciary Committee, is extraordinary. You know, this disparity is one of our Nation's most glaring examples of injustice in the criminal justice system. It is one of the most fundamentally challenging civil and human rights issues facing the Nation today. The truth is that racial disparities and racial discrimination in our criminal justice system is a stain on American democracy, and it undermines the principle of equal justice under law. It undermines the confidence really that all Americans have in the fundamental fairness of our system. And it holds us up to ridicule abroad because we are challenged on the hypocrisy and the gap between what we say our principles are and what we do in practice. Now, you talked about the existence of racial discrimination within the criminal justice system, and indeed, it traces its legacy back to the period of slavery in American life. Yes, we have made as a country extraordinary progress in helping to reconcile that difference between America's ideals and American reality. But we still have a long way to go. Structural inequality and racial discrimination of the kind that the crack/powder cocaine disparity reflects in my view cannot be entirely excised even with the passage of your extraordinarily important legislation, because the numbers that you allude to are as much a reflection of the problems at every step of the criminal justice system. Who is arrested, who is prosecuted, and, ultimately, how those individuals are sentenced upon conviction is often a reflection of inherent bias in the system that can only be addressed by bringing it to the surface, making it an open issue in which the country discussed and seeks remedy. And we need to do so. Hence, this problem of racial profiling, which we also know exists, contributes to the very problem that you have talked about with the crack/powder disparity, because the truth is statistics of the U.S. Sentencing Commission and other bodies-- human rights organizations and internationally recognized bodies--shows that the distribution of those who use these products is far closer to and equal a system than the prosecution and conviction rate would suggest. So, you know, we thank you for your leadership in this area. It is important. Your effort to bring bipartisan support to this issue is extremely important. We were pleased at the Justice Sotomayor confirmation hearing that the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Jeff Sessions, lifted up the issue of crack/powder cocaine with which he shares concern as a former U.S. Attorney. But, ultimately, the issue is how do we come together to make a decision about how to equalize these penalties in a way that makes sense given that the two products are pharmacologically so similar that the disparity both in sentencing and penalty obviously should not exist. So thank you for your effort to push this legislation, thanks for trying to make it a bipartisan issue, as it should be, because these kinds of disparities are not partisan issues. They are really national issues. And until we step back and really reflect on that and fashion solutions to the problem, we will not be able to make progress. But I think your leadership is really contributing to it, so thank you. Chairman Durbin. Thank you. Senator Franken. Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and once again I would like to compliment you on your comically ironic use of ``intertwinedness.'' That was very good. Mr. Henderson, your discussion of the disparities in sentencing and the prison populations reminds me of Richard Pryor's discussion of justice, when he said that he visited a prison and it was ``Just us.'' Let me turn to the Convention on Torture, if I might. In 1994, the U.S. Congress ratified the Convention Against Torture, and the treaty prohibits countries from returning or deporting anyone to a country ``where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.'' That is the quote from the treat. But our implementing regulations actually require someone claiming protection under the Convention to actually show ``it is more than likely that he would be tortured.'' So, Ms. Massimino, doesn't our standard seem higher than the Convention's standard? And doesn't that create a problem? Ms. Massimino. Yes. But there are many problems I actually think that are even worse than the standard of proof about whether it is more likely than not or substantial likelihood, actually. What we have seen over the years since the treaty was formally ratified is a real erosion of the whole concept of a responsibility not to send people to torture and, in fact, efforts to get around that, to reduce the opportunity for people who are in U.S. custody, whether they are in U.S. custody abroad--this is another issue that we have to pay close attention to. The United States has asserted at times that the obligation not to return people to face torture does not apply if the person is outside the United States but in the custody of the United States. So you cannot have an adjudication about whether or not a person has a substantial--that there is a substantial likelihood that they would face torture unless that person has an opportunity to raise that claim in either a removal proceeding or any other kind of proceeding. Even in extradition proceedings, what we have found is that there is an inadequate level of protection, due process protection, for people to raise these claims, and it comes down to the discretion of the Secretary of State whether or not the person can be extradited, even if there is a magistrate finding that there is a more likely than not chance that the person will be tortured. Now, you know, the United States has cited this obligation in its refraining from sending the Uyghurs at Guantanamo back to China, and that is very welcome. But this is an issue that really needs a very close look at our--both in the extradition area and removal area to make sure that we have got sufficient procedures in place that will allow people to even raise these claims. In the context of refugee cases and asylum cases, often it is protection under the Convention Against Torture that is the most appropriate protection, and yet for many years our immigration judges did not even have the opportunity to make a judgment about that claim. So I think it would be very important for us to have a look at across the board, both when the U.S. acts internationally but also in removal proceedings. This was a problem in the Arar case, as you probably know, which people do not think of necessarily as an immigration case, but it was the failure to really have an opportunity--he raised a fear of torture when the United States said that it was not going to let him go back to his home country of Canada. And yet there was no procedure by which that could be adjudicated by an independent person. So you are right very much to focus on it, and I think when the United States reports on its compliance with the Convention Against Torture, we need to take very seriously the recommendations to reform our procedures. Senator Franken. So when we have in the past--and I hope not now, but when we have engaged in rendition, you are saying that one of the issues has been just due process, the ability of the person being sent to another country being able to have this adjudicated in a proper court. Ms. Massimino. Absolutely, and I would not--I am not at all convinced that the executive branch has set aside assertions of the authority to conduct renditions. I think that as I understand it from the President's Executive orders, that was not definitively set aside by any stretch. And I think we need to make sure if there is going to--anytime that there is a transfer--that is why we have extradition treaties and removal proceedings, because anytime there is a transfer of a person from the custody of one government to the custody of another government, that person's life, liberty is, you know, in question. And so we have to have protections. And so anytime that it goes outside those processes, we need to make sure that there is a real reason for doing it and, second, that there is a kind of a process where that can be raised and adjudicated independently. Senator Franken. Thank you. Mr. Henderson, my first cosponsorship in this body was of the Employment Free Choice Act, and I was heartened that the Leadership Conference views passage of EFCA as necessary for fulfillment of our obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Can you tell us a little bit more about the provisions of these treaties that require passage of EFCA? Mr. Henderson. Yes, sir. First of all, thank you for raising the question, Senator Franken. You know, when we talk about civil rights in our country, I often find that those who are not as familiar with our constitutional obligations and international treaty obligations are frequently surprised to hear that a right to education on behalf of all children in our country is not recognized by our Supreme Court as a fundamental right. It is not. The case of San Antonio v. Rodriguez is a case which held the principle that education is not a fundamentally protected constitutional right in this country. So, too, is the issue of the right to organize. I think Eleanor Roosevelt and those who helped fashion the Universal Declaration of Human Rights understood the seminal importance of allowing individuals to organize to protect their interests in the workplace: the 40-hour work week, the weekend that we now enjoy, the protections that workers who had high school diplomas but who were able by virtue of their hard work in the manufacturing context to create the middle class that we celebrate. Walter Reuther of the United Auto Workers was one of our founding members of the Leadership Conference, and it was because of the UAW that there were adequate resources to bring individuals to Washington. They paid for the buses, for example, for the march on Washington. They helped provide the resources that were really necessary to help advance the causes that many of us support and celebrate today. And yet the interests of workers are largely ignored. We find in many instances that employers have become increasingly sophisticated about misclassifying workers, calling them independent contractors, which strips them of their protections in the workplace, takes away their protection under many civil rights laws, does not allow them to petition for protection, to be an example of what we think is a real problem--worker misclassification. Or forcing workers into circumstances where they waive their constitutionally protected rights to challenge discriminatory practices in the workplace through processes of mandatory arbitration. We think that is a horrendous problem, and, you know, individuals have addressed that, including, Senator, your own efforts. So there are indeed examples, concrete examples of how workers today are not adequately protected, and that is why the Employee Free Choice Act is such a fundamentally important piece of legislation and one that the Leadership Conference wholeheartedly supports. I should also say, just as an addendum to my friend Elisa Massimino's response, the nongovernmental organizations, the civil and human rights groups of this country, there is a groundswell emerging, as Elisa knows and is leading helping to develop, to protect and enforce our treaty obligations internationally. There is a clear recognition of that. I am privileged that the Leadership Conference works with a group called the Campaign for a New Domestic Human Rights Agenda, which is about 50 national and grassroots organizations that have come together to really support the full enforcement of our existing international obligations, and they are making a significant difference both here in Washington and in communities all over the country. So these issues that you and Chairman Durbin are bringing to the fore today are critically important. There is a base of support to implement these treaties effectively, and we are looking for ways to assist in the coordination of that effort. Senator Franken. Thank you so much, and, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I have gone over my time and not done the requisite complimenting of you. I will just throw it back to you, but thank you so much for chairing this important hearing and calling it and for your leadership. Chairman Durbin. And if you want to add the compliment as part of the record, written record at a later date, we will keep the record open. [Laughter.] Senator Franken. Oh, I can make up for the lack of compliments in the written record. Good. Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Senator Franken. Thanks to everybody for being here. We asked a lot of organizations that did not have a chance to testify what they thought we should be focusing on. We had an amazing outpouring of response, 41 different organizations, and we are in the process, the staff has notified me, of going through their recommendations and finding a way to post them on a website, making them part of the congressional record, which we hope to continue to do on a regular basis. There have been so many great organizations that have stepped forward, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, Center for American Progress, Human Rights Watch, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights under the Law, Open Society Policy Center, Rights Working Group, and all of those, without objection, will be included in the record. [The information referred to appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Durbin. I am going to bring this hearing to a close, and the hearing record will remain open--for a variety of reasons--over the next week for additional materials. I want to make it clear for the record that this self- criticism does not overlook the fact that our Nation has been a leader in the world in championing civil rights and human rights, and I want to say with great pride that a lot of people who came before us took this very seriously. I hope that this effort will give us even more credibility and will also lead to a better country that we live in, which at the end of the day is what we are all here working toward. We have concerns around the world. I could list all the different varieties of venues that have been discussed today. But as was said by President Obama just recently in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, ``America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves.'' I learned yesterday that our President did an all- nighter on that speech, if you thought that Presidents did not do those sorts of things. When we are honest about our own shortcomings and work to address them, we will be more effective at protecting human rights close to home and around the world. The hearing stands adjourned. Mr. Henderson. Thank you. Ms. Massimino. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] [Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]