Treaty Doc. 96-53; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on December 18, 1979, and Signed on Behalf of the United States of America on July 17, 1980

TREATY DOC. 96-53; CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN, ADOPTED BY THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON DECEMBER 18, 1979, AND SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON JULY 17, 1980

THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2002

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., chairman of the committee, presiding.

Present: Senators Biden, Boxer, Feingold, Wellstone, Brownback, and Enzi.

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order, please. Today, the Committee on Foreign Relations is going to consider an important treaty designed to advance the rights of women around the world: The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Action on this treaty is long overdue. It was submitted by President Carter in 1980. Let me say that again. It was submitted by President Carter in 1980.

Eight years ago, in September 1994, the committee approved this treaty 13 to 5; so we are on record. I voted for this treaty, and others who were on this committee at the time, 13 of us, some of whom are still here, voted for this treaty in 1994.

Unfortunately, no action has been taken on the treaty since that date. At the outset, let me express my disappointment with the manner in which, and I have tried to be very, very cooperative with the Department with which this committee has had great relations and no substantive complaints with the Department of State, but I want to express my disappointment with the manner in which the administration has addressed this treaty. Its cooperation has been far from satisfactory, and this is not just carping. Let me explain why.

Last June, I became chairman-as my father would say, it is better to be lucky than good. After I became chairman, I wrote Secretary Powell to invite the State Department to submit its listand would you close that door back there? I would ask the police to close the door in the back and keep the noise down. Thank you.

Last June, as I said, after I became chairman, I wrote Secretary Powell to invite the Department of State to submit its list of priorities for treaties pending in the Senate, restating the request made by Senator Helms 3 months earlier, which I might say for my colleagues from the House, this is one of the few things the Constitution does not have them do, treaties. It is a tradition of the Senate. It is a practice to ask each administration to do that. There is nothing abnormal about the request that was made. In my letter I indicated that I expected to convene a hearing on the Woman's Convention in the coming year.

Senator Boxer and I have been talking about this for several years, but because of the-and I do not say this critically. It is just an observation. Because of the strong opposition of the then-chairman of the committee, there was no likelihood we were going to get a hearing on the treaty, and so we had planned a half-a-dozen different ways to try to bring the treaty up on the floor even without a hearing, and we found that we ran into roadblocks that would make it virtually impossible to get it done, so I indicated that I expected to convene a hearing on the women's convention in the coming year, and that the Department would be asked to testify at the time.

In February of this year, in response to my letter, the Department submitted, and I quote, the administration's treaty priority list for the 107th Congress.

Now, the letter places treaties pending in the Senate in a number of categories. The letter I received from the Department, the letter indicated that the Bush administration supported the women's convention and placed that treaty in category III, a category of treaties which the administration believes, "are generally desirable and should be approved," not their highest priority. There are other treaties they have listed. There are several categories in the letter they have sent us, but in the letter they sent us in February saying, we believe this treaty is generally desirable and should be approved.

Heartened by that statement, in early March I wrote back to the Secretary of State and indicated the committee would hold a hearing after the Easter recess. I invited the Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs to appear at the hearing, scheduled for May 15. As the hearing date approached, the Department informed this committee that it was still discussing who would testify for the administration, so I postponed the hearing, fully expecting that, giving them the opportunity-they are for this treaty to decide who it was who would best make the case for the administration for this treaty, so I postponed the hearing and rescheduled it for this week and issued a new written invitation to the Under Secretary for Global Affairs.

Despite this considerable advance warning-now, remember, this is right after Easter, and we rescheduled it for now. At the end of May the committee received a request for another delay in the hearing. The reason given, the Department of Justice had just begun a new review of the treaty. So at the end of May we are told, after being told in February they supported this treaty, that the Department of Justice was going to review the treaty.

Now, for years I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I can tell you how long it takes the Department of Justice to reach a decision on anything that is controversial. So, I fail to understand this new development. The committee was informed that the treaty priority letter had been subject to a thorough interagency review prior to its submission to the committee. I asked, I said, now look, you sent us this list at the beginning of the year. Was it just an accident that it got put on the list, no one vetted it? They said no, the whole letter we sent you listing all the treaties and our priorities had been subject to a thorough interagency review prior to its submission to this committee.

The sudden news that the Department of Justice has just initiated a review suggests that was either not the case, or something has intervened that I do not fully understand. More to the point, I am concerned by the casual attitude of the executive branch toward the treaty process and the legitimate request of this committee for testimony on a significant treaty pending before it.

I indicated last June-not this June, last June that the committee would have a hearing in the coming year. I reiterated that notice in early March, when I told the State Department the treaty would be subject to a hearing this spring, and over this period never once was the committee informed that the Department of Justice had initiated, was planning to initiate, even thought about initiating a review of this treaty.

I should note that the State Department made a last-minute offer to send two mid-level officials, but inasmuch as their testimony would be incomplete until the Department of Justice had completed a review, I decided to proceed with this hearing today and to hear from the executive branch when it is fully prepared, and if it is not fully prepared, to move the treaty, period, with or without their input.

As of today, the position of the Bush administration, as reiterated in a letter dated June 4, is this. It believes the treaty is generally desirable and should be approved. That statement has not been rescinded, so I am assuming and proceeding as if the President of the United States supports us passing this treaty. The fact that it is reviewing the treaty and the committee's proposed resolution for ratification from 1994 to see if additional conditions should be recommended to the Senate, should be done quickly, because if it is not done, we are going to move, and you all know I say-I have five of my colleagues sitting before me here. You all know our legislative schedule. What are the prospects, if we were to bring up this treaty on the floor between now and the time we go out, even if even if there were overwhelming support for it? Time is a-wasting.

The treaty on the rights of women is a landmark document. It sets forth the basic obligations to advance and protect equality for women. Most nations of the world, 169 of them in all, have become a party to this treaty. For the United States, the treaty will impose a minimal burden. The U.S. Constitution and existing Federal laws will satisfy the obligations of the treaty. The United States will need to enter a handful of reservations to a treaty where it is inconsistent with our Constitution or current Federal law, as we do

« Anterior Continuar »

Livros

Treaty Doc. 96-53; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of ...